IN RE: JORDAN J. (2022)

In this case, where sixteen-year-old respondent was charged with assaulting his fourteen-year-old girlfriend, the presentment agency sought to admit on its case in chief both a prior and a subsequent assault by respondent on the victim as exceptions under Molineux. This evidence was purportedly to demonstrated respondent's intent and motive, and to explain the ongoing teen dating violence between respondent and the victim. The court finds that this evidence is not needed to establish intent or motive. Intent to cause physical injury can readily be established by respondent's violent acts towards the victim, and respondent himself provided the motive for his acts--his belief that the victim was cheating on him--in a statement he made to the victim during the incident.

However, the court finds that respondent's prior assault on the victim, which occurred just a few weeks before the charged assault, explains the abusive nature of respondent's relationship with the victim. After weighing the probative value of this evidence against the potential prejudice to respondent, the court will admit evidence of the prior assault. The court denies the presentment agency's request to admit evidence of the subsequent assault, which occurred four months after the matter before the court, because it sheds little additional light on the nature of the relationship between the respondent and the victim at the time of the charged assault. Thus, the potential prejudice to respondent of evidence of the subsequent assault outweighs any probative value.

Background

Respondent Jordan J., age sixteen, was arrested on November 7, 2021, for an assault that is alleged to have occurred that same day. He was initially charged in the New York County Supreme Court, Youth Part, as an adolescent offender and was indicted for two counts of assault in the second degree. On March 8, 2022, the matter was removed to New York County Family Court pursuant to CPL § 722.21(5), and on March 9, 2022, the instant delinquency petition was filed. Respondent was charged with two counts of assault in the second degree, violations of PL § 120.05(2), and one count of assault in the third degree, a violation of PL § 120.00(1). The victim of the assault was fourteen-year-old Sara L., respondent's then girlfriend.

Because this case was removed after indictment, a supporting deposition by the victim was not filed. The grand jury minutes served as the nonhearsay evidence required by Family Court Act § 311.2(3) to “establish, if true, every element of each crime charged and respondent's commission thereof.”

According to Sara's grand jury testimony, she and respondent had been dating for nine and a half months, when on November 7, 2021, Sara went behind Bellevue Hospital with respondent. Respondent told Sara to get down on her knees and place her hands behind her back. Sara complied. Respondent picked up a thin pole from the ground and struck Sara about the head and on other parts of her body. He then picked up a “sharp rock” from the ground, grabbed Sara's head, and scratched her behind her ears, causing Sara's ear to “drip” blood. Respondent also punched Sara in the face three times with a closed fist and kicked her twice in the eye.

When asked if respondent said anything to her during the incident, Sara replied: “Yeah, so basically he (respondent) was, like, talking about cheating like he always does. ‘Cause he has, I don't know, he has a strong feeling like I cheated in the relationship.”

After the incident, Sara experienced pain in her head for “multiple days.” Her face was “really sore” where she had been punched and kicked, and it even hurt to lie down. The pain in Sara's face persisted for “multiple days.”

Instant Motion

On April 14, 2022, the presentment agency filed the instant motion seeking permission to introduce evidence on its case in chief of two other assaults on Sara by respondent, one which occurred on October 12, 2021, prior to the incident, and the other which occurred on March 22, 2022, subsequent to the incident. These two assaults resulted in the filing of delinquency petitioners which are currently pending in Bronx County Family Court. It is alleged that on October 12, 2021, a few weeks before the assault charged in the instant petition, Sara and respondent got into an argument and respondent punched Sara, kicked her all over her body, bit her face, and waived a kitchen knife at her. With respect to the second incident, it is alleged that on March 22, 2022, four months after the assault charged in the instant petition, respondent and Sara were arguing and during the argument, respondent punched Sara in the face and kicked her. It is further alleged that during the March 22nd incident, respondent violated the terms of an order of protection issued against him by the Youth Part judge. The presentment agency asserted that it was seeking to introduce evidence of the prior and subsequent assaults as exceptions under People v Molineux (168 NY 264 [1901]), not to establish respondent's propensity to commit criminal acts, but rather because these acts are probative on the issues of intent and motive, and to complete the narrative and explain the ongoing teen dating violence between respondent and Sara.

In a response dated May 5, 2022, respondent opposed the presentment agency's application. Respondent argued that intent can be inferred from the act of the assault itself and that evidence of the prior and subsequent assaults are not necessary to show motive. Respondent also disputed that evidence of the prior bad acts is necessary to complete the narrative, as these acts are not proximate in time or location with the crimes charged in the instant petition.

Court's Decision

In determining whether to admit evidence of prior and subsequent bad acts of the accused on the prosecution's case in chief, the court must engage in a two-step analysis. First, the court must determine whether the prosecution has made a sufficient showing that the evidence is directly relevant to a material issue, and second, the court must weigh the evidence's probative value against its potential for undue prejudice to the accused (People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 560 [2012]). “Prior bad acts in domestic violence situations are more likely to be considered relevant and probative evidence because the aggression and bad acts are focused on one particular person ․” (People v Westerling, 48 AD3d 965, 966 [3d Dept 2008]). However, after a determination as to whether the evidence is admissible as a matter of law under a Molineux exception, “admissibility turns on a case-specific discretionary balancing of probity versus prejudice” (id.).

This court finds that the bad acts which the prosecution seeks to admit are not necessary to establish intent or motive, as neither is genuinely at issue in the case. As respondent pointed out, intent to cause physical injury is readily established by respondent's unambiguous acts of striking Sara about the head and body with a pole, scraping Sara behind the ear with a rough stone, kicking her in the eye, and punching in the face her with a closed fist. Motive is likewise not at issue since respondent himself stated his motive during the assault. Respondent believed that Sara was cheating on him in the relationship.

However, the court finds that the October 21, 2021, incident completes the narrative and provides the trier of fact with needed background information as to the abusive nature of respondent's relationship with Sara. This information explains to the trier of fact why respondent was behaving in an aggressive and violent manner towards someone with whom he had been having a romantic relationship for over nine months (see People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16 [2009] [in context of domestic violence, evidence of prior bad acts provided necessary background information regarding nature of relationship between victim and defendant]). The prior assault also provides a reason why Sara was compliant with respondent's request for her to kneel and place her hands behind her back while he assaulted her. Likely, Sara was afraid of disobeying respondent, having been the recipient of respondent's violent behavior on at least one prior occasion (see People v McKeehan, 2 AD3d 1421 [4th Dept. 2003] lv den 3 NY3d 644 [2003] [prior abuse of child's mother by defendant admissible to explain why she did not leave defendant's residence and lied to medical personnel about the cause of her child's injuries]). Significantly, the October 21, 2021 incident occurred just a few weeks before the assault charged in the instant petition.

The court has weighed probative value verses prejudice and determines that the probative value of understanding the assault in the context of teen dating violence outweighs the potential prejudice to respondent. Therefore, the court permits evidence of the October 21, 2021 incident to be admitted on the prosecution's case in chief. The court states that, as trier of fact, it will not use this evidence to show respondent's propensity to commit criminal acts, but only for the limited purpose stated herein.

The court, however, does not permit evidence of the March 22, 2022 assault to be admitted on the prosecution's case in chief. This subsequent incident provides little additional information as to the nature of the relationship between respondent and Sara four months earlier. Therefore, the potential prejudice to respondent of the admission of evidence of yet another assault against Sara by respondent outweighs any limited probative value.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the court grants the motion of the presentment agency to the extent that it permits evidence of the October 21, 2022 assault to be admitted on its case in chief.

The above constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Carol Goldstein, J.