Summary
In People v. Melendez (14 A.D.2d 557), relied on by the majority, the District Attorney did not attempt to connect the proffered firearm with the robbery; and since the firearm had no probative value in the prosecution of the crime charged, the District Attorney on the appeal recommended reversal and a new trial.
Summary of this case from People v. MillerOpinion
July 5, 1961
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, rendered June 4, 1959, after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to serve a term of 15 to 25 years at Sing Sing. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted. It was serious prejudicial error for the trial court to admit evidence indicating that the defendant, five days after the commission of the offense for which he was being tried, was guilty of another crime: the illegal possession of a firearm. Such subsequent illegal possession, being unrelated to the crime charged, was of no probative force in proving the crime. Hence, it should have been excluded. Nolan, P.J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.