People v. Aiken

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Aiken

293 A.D.2d 623, 740 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3730

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 623 (People v. Aiken) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Aiken, 293 A.D.2d 623, 740 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered February 18, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in ruling that the People could adduce proof of prior crimes previously committed by the defendant in order to prove intent is without merit. When fraudulent intent is an issue, evidence of other similar acts is admissible to negate the existence of an innocent state of mind (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 297-298; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242). Furthermore, evidence of prior similar crimes is particularly probative of guilt with respect to charges involving forgery (see People v Knox, 126 AD2d 748). Ritter, J.P., O’Brien, Krausman and Adams, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered February 18, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in ruling that the People could adduce proof of prior crimes previously committed by the defendant in order to prove intent is without merit. When fraudulent intent is an issue, evidence of other similar acts is admissible to negate the existence of an innocent state of mind (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 297-298; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242). Furthermore, evidence of prior similar crimes is particularly probative of guilt with respect to charges involving forgery (see People v Knox, 126 AD2d 748). Ritter, J.P., O’Brien, Krausman and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 623, 740 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aiken-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack