The New York State Senate approved a bill on Wednesday, permitting evidence of a defendant’s prior sexual offenses to be admissible in sex crimes cases. The heavily approved bill, with a voting result of 55-4, will now progress to the State Assembly for further consideration.
This legislative development is a response to the New York Court of Appeals’ recent decision to overturn the conviction of infamous movie producer Harvey Weinstein. The court ruled that the trial judge had unjustly allowed women to testify about assault allegations that weren’t part of the criminal charges against Weinstein.
The appellate court articulated that the trial court wrongly admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts due to its lack of material non-propensity relevance. The court emphasized that such testimonies improperly bolstered the complainants’ credibility while tarnishing Weinstein’s character for the jury. The court also criticized the trial judge’s decision to allow cross-examination about Weinstein’s prior bad acts.
Under the existing New York law, admissibility of prior bad acts is permissible in certain scenarios, such as to prove motive or intent. However, these decisions are predominantly guided by judicial precedent rather than explicit statutory rules.
The new bill seeks to codify the admissibility of prior sexual offenses, allowing these to be considered in sex crime trials irrespective of their direct relation to the charges. It also empowers judges to exclude such evidence if it results in undue prejudice against the defendant. This mirrors the federal standard in the Federal Rule of Evidence, which similarly allows admission of such evidence.
Adopted in several states like California, Texas, and Illinois, such provisions consider evidence showing a defendant’s propensity to commit sexual assault, contributing to a broader basis for including prior bad acts.
Supporters of the bill assert that it facilitates establishment of clear patterns of behavior by alleged offenders, while protecting victims’ rights and ensuring relevant evidence isn’t unfairly excluded. Critics, however, caution about potential violations of defendants’ rights and the risk of biased trials, as noted by the Legal Aid Society.
As the Manhattan district attorney’s office plans to retry Weinstein as early as September, the new legal standards might come into play if the bill is enacted.
For more detailed coverage of this legal development, read more at JURIST.