Prior to jury selection in the Defendant's trial for one count each of Murder in the Second Degree, Assault in the First Degree, Concealment of a Human Corpse, and three counts of Tampering with Physical Evidence, counsel was heard, on the record and in the presence of the Defendant regarding the People's Molineux/Ventimiglia application, as to the admissibility of evidence as to other criminal or bad conduct alleged of the defendant, either in the People's direct case (People v. Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v. Molineux,, 168 NY 264) or on cross-examination of the defendant (CPL 245.20 [3]). The People filed their Notice pursuant to CPL § 245.30(3), et al. with the court on February 25, 2025 (hereinafter, "Notice"). The Defense responded on February 28, 2025. Oral arguments on the motion were held on May 19, 2025.

Pursuant to the Notice, the People are seeking to introduce the following testimony/evidence in their case-in-chief as follows:

Item #1: Testimony regarding the Defendant's alleged commission and planning of crimes and activities constituting burglaries and larcenies from businesses, laundromats and car washes in Barker, Lockport, Newfane and Lyndonville, NY between March 10 — 17, 2024 along with testimony regarding the victim's alleged awareness of such activities.

Item #2: Testimony regarding the Defendant's plan to commit a burglary, robbery and assault of individuals residing in Niagara County, who Defendant believed were in possession of large sums of cash.

Item #3: Testimony concerning the Defendant's conviction for Assault in the Second [*2]Degree on November 9, 2020 including underlying facts, which include a violent assault upon an individual with a knife; and

Item #4: Testimony from witnesses concerning the Defendant's claimed assault and/or murder of individuals in locations outside of New York State.

The familiar Molineux rule states that evidence of a defendant's uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged (People v. Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 559 [2012]). Where, however, "the proffered Molineux evidence is relevant to some material fact in the case, other than the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged, it is not to be excluded merely because it shows that the defendant had committed other crimes" (id. at 560). "The prosecution has the burden of showing this direct relevance" (People v. Alexander, 234 AD3d 1268, 1269 (4th Dep't. 2025) citing People v. Weinstein, 42 NY3d 439, 457 [2024]).

Although it is not an exhaustive list, evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts may be admitted to prove the crime charged when the evidence tends to establish:

"(1) motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others; and (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial"

(id., citing People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293, 61 N.E. 286 [1901]); see also, People v. Denson, 26 NY3d 179, 185—86 [2015]).

The People bear the burden of proof on a Ventimiglia/Molineux application to pre-determine the admissibility, on the People's direct case, of evidence relating to a defendant's uncharged crimes and/or bad acts. In assessing whether evidence of a defendant's prior criminal acts should be admitted at trial, a trial court is required to engage in a two-step analysis. First, the trial court must determine whether the People have "identif[ied] some material issue, other than the defendant's criminal propensity, to which the evidence is directly relevant" (Cass, 18 NY3d at 560). If the People have met that burden, the trial court must then "weigh the evidence's probative value against its potential for undue prejudice to the defendant" (id.; see People v. Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]). "If the evidence has substantial probative value and is directly relevant to the purpose—other than to show criminal propensity—for which it is offered, the probative value of the evidence outweighs the danger of prejudice and the court may admit the evidence" (Cass, 18 NY3d at 560).

In keeping in mind and applying these principles, the Court rules as follows with respect to each item:

Item #1: Testimony regarding the Defendant's alleged commission and planning of crimes and activities constituting burglaries and larcenies from businesses, laundromats and car washes in Barker, Lockport, Newfane and Lyndonville, NY between March 10 — 17, 2024 along with testimony regarding the victim's alleged awareness of such activities.

The People's application with respect to Item #1 is hereby GRANTED. Evidence that the Defendant was aware that the victim had direct knowledge and/or awareness of the Defendant's various alleged burglaries and larcenies is probative to the Defendant's motive and intent in case. The People contend that the Defendant murdered the victim to silence him after the victim advised the Defendant and his then-girlfriend that people were starting to suspect their [*3]involvement in these crimes and to stop him from reporting these incidents to law enforcement. The People also contend that the victim transported the Defendant and the Defendant's former girlfriend on the day of the murder to a location to commit a burglary, which was abandoned by the parties after arriving. As such, this evidence is also necessary to complete the narrative as to the victim's relationship with the Defendant and his then-girlfriend, who was a close friend to the victim and to explain the events leading up to the victim's murder. It further explains the Defendant's former girlfriend's state of mind and why she did not report the incident to law enforcement. A proper limiting instruction would ameliorate any potential prejudicial effect.

Item #2: Testimony regarding the Defendant's plan to commit a burglary, robbery and assault of individuals residing in Niagara County, who Defendant believed were in possession of large sums of cash.

Unless proof is elicited that either 1) the Defendant knew that the victim was aware of or had knowledge of these planned activities, or 2) the Defendant believed that the victim was aware of or had knowledge of such planned activities, the evidence sought to be admitted cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged. As such, the People's application with respect to Item #2 is hereby DENIED unless the aforementioned proof is elicited or the door is somehow opened during the trial.

Item #3: Testimony concerning the Defendant's conviction for Assault in the Second Degree on November 9, 2020 including underlying facts, which include a violent assault upon an individual with a knife.

The People's application with respect to Item #3 is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART for the following reasons. The People will be permitted to illicit testimony that the Defendant was on parole as it is necessary to complete the narrative. However, in weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect to the Defendant, evidence of Defendant's Assault conviction on November 9, 2020 including the underlying facts in which he used a knife is more prejudicial than probative. Accordingly, the People will be precluded from introducing such evidence at trial unless the Defendant opens the door. As such, the remainder of People's application is therefore DENIED. The Court will give the jury an instruction at the appropriate time that the jury is not to speculate as to why the defendant was on parole and that the fact he was on parole has no bearing upon whether or not he committed the crimes charged here.

Item #4: Testimony from witnesses concerning the Defendant's claimed assault and/or murder of individuals in locations outside of New York State.

This evidence tends to demonstrate the Defendant's propensity to commit crimes rather than any established Molineux exception. Also, in weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect to the Defendant, evidence of Defendant's alleged claims of assault and/or murder of individuals in locations outside of New York State is more prejudicial than probative. Thus, the People will be precluded from introducing such evidence in its case-in-chief at trial unless the Defendant opens the door. Accordingly, the People's application is DENIED as it relates to Item #4.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Proceed accordingly.