Flurry of Decisions in 2012 on 'Other Crimes' Evidence

, New York Law Journal

   |0 Comments

In his Evidence column, Albany Law School professor Michael J. Hutter writes that while the Court of Appeals' 2012 decisions involving an application of the 'Molineux' rule may be viewed by some as nothing more than ad hoc decision-making which provides no guidance to, or at worst obfuscates a 'Molineux' analysis, when the decisions are read together, a general framework governing the application of 'Molineux' to a proffer of other crimes evidence is suggested.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202587098321

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.