Evidence of prior uncharged crimes in New York: which is true?

• A. Is admissible to prove propensities
• B. Is inadmissible to prove propensities but may be admitted to show motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity in limited circumstances, and common scheme or plan
• C. Must be excluded in all cases
• D. Is admissible only in civil cases

Answer: (B)

Evidence of prior uncharged crimes cannot be used to prove propensity to commit crimes. That would be character evidence aimed at showing a tendency to act in a certain way, which is generally inadmissible to prove how a person acted on the current occasion.

What makes this question true is the recognition that those prior acts can still be relevant for other purposes. In New York, a prior uncharged crime may be admitted to show motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity in limited circumstances, and common scheme or plan. These are non-propensity uses, meaning the evidence isn’t aimed at proving the person is “the kind of person who does this,” but rather at proving a specific point about the current case—for example that the defendant acted with a particular intent, that there was a specific identity tying the acts together, or that the acts were part of a broader plan or pattern.

The option that claims it must be excluded in all cases is incorrect because the law provides these narrowly tailored exceptions. The option that says it’s admissible only in civil cases is also incorrect, since these non-propensity uses can arise in criminal cases as well. The option that says it’s admissible to prove propensities is incorrect because that would defeat the purpose of the rule against using prior acts to show a general character trait.

So, the correct understanding is: prior uncharged crimes are inadmissible to prove propensity, but may be admitted for motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity in limited circumstances, and common scheme or plan.