People v. Zackowitz

[EVIDENCE – CHARACTER EVIDENCE] PEOPLE V. ZACKOWITZ - COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK - 254 N.Y. 192, 172 N.E. 466 (1930) RULE OF LAW: (character) evidence that has no relevance other than to demonstrate a criminal defendant’s propensity to commit a crime is inadmissible to prove the defendant’s guilt. 1) FACTS AND RELEVANT BACKGROUND - [material facts + procedural background] On November 10, 1929, Mr. Zackowitz (defendant) shot and killed Frank Coppola on a street near Zackowitz’s apartment. The issue at trial was not whether Zackowitz was guilty of murder, but whether the murder was premeditated or an impulsive act. The prosecution (plaintiff) sought to demonstrate the murder was premeditated, and that Zackowitz was therefore guilty of first-degree murder. During trial, the prosecution submitted evidence that Zackowitz owned three pistols and a teargas gun, which were stored in his apartment at the time of the murder. The trial court ruled that the murder was premeditated and convicted Zackowitz of first-degree murder [prosecutor needed to show intent + premeditation to establish first degree murder]. 2) LEGAL ISSUE Is evidence that serves only to demonstrate a criminal defendant’s propensity to commit a crime admissible to prove the defendant’s guilt? 3) HOLDING (CARDOZO) No. Evidence that serves only to demonstrate that a defendant has a propensity to commit a crime is known as character evidence, and is inadmissible to prove the defendant’s guilt. 4) RATIONALE (i) INTERPRETATION OF RULES [EVIDENCE + PURPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE] RULE 404(1)(A) + RULE 404(1)(B): character evidence is evidence based on (i) character, (ii) character trait, (iii) past instance of conduct other than the conduct of the crime under trial. Purpose: evidence is offered to prove (1) [general] PROPENSITY of a person to engage 1 in some unlawful/illegal conduct (ex. He is a violent person and many times in the past engaged in violent actions) and (2) [specific] PROPENSITY that in the case at stake the defendant acted according to such propensity. Analysis: (1) is evidence relevant? (Yes, likely); (2) is the evidence material? (Yes, likely); (3) is this character evidence? (Yes, likely); (4) does this character evidence trigger rule 403 creating a danger of unfair prejudice? (Yes, likely). (ii) ANALYSIS FROM JUDGE CARDOZO (a) HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE This rule of evidence ensures that a jury is not unfairly prejudiced against a defendant whom they know to have a propensity to commit bad acts. A jury might otherwise place too much emphasis on the defendant’s prior bad acts rather than on what the defendant has done in the case at hand, or convict based on the mere fact that the defendant is a bad person. To avoid such results, courts will generally exclude character evidence [RULE 403 IS TRIGGERED – UNFAIR PREJUDICE]. This is not to say that a defendant’s character has no relevance in a criminal case. A person with a history of violence may very well be more likely to commit a violent crime than a peaceful person. However, the high likelihood that such evidence would unfairly prejudice a jury against a defendant outweighs the minimal relevance of character evidence (b) APPLICATION TO THE CASE In this case, the trial court permitted the prosecution to admit evidence that Zackowitz owned several dangerous weapons, none of which were the murder weapon, and all of which were stored in a box in his apartment at the time of the murder. It is apparent that the prosecution’s sole aim in admitting this evidence was to demonstrate that Zackowitz, by virtue of owning such dangerous weapons, is an evil and dangerous man who is therefore more inclined to have killed the victim with premeditation rather than on impulse. The evidence has little other relevance to the case. Zackowitz did not use these weapons to commit the crime, and in fact, did not bring these weapons to 2 the scene of the crime. To be sure, if Zackowitz had brought these weapons with him, the evidence would be admissible to show that he prepared for the crime. But this was not the case, and because the evidence is only relevant to show Zackowitz is a dangerous person with a propensity to commit the crime with premeditation, the evidence is inadmissible. TRIAL DECISION IS REVERSED AND CASE IS REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. *** 3