The New York State Senate approved a bill on Wednesday that would allow evidence of a defendant’s prior sexual offenses to be admissible in sex crimes cases. The bill, which passed with a vote of 55-4, now moves to the State Assembly for further consideration.
The bill comes in response to the New York Court of Appeals’ decision last month to overturn the rape conviction of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. The court found that the trial judge had unfairly allowed women to testify about assault allegations that were not part of the criminal charges against Weinstein.
The court stated, “the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose.” It further noted that the teimony of these women improperly bolstered the complainants’ credibility while diminishing Weinstein’s character before the jury. In addition, the court also addressed the improper scope of cross-examination allowed by the trial judge, stating, “The trial court abused its discretion when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross-examined about prior, uncharged alleged bad acts and despicable behavior which was immaterial to his in-court credibility, and which served no purpose other than to display for the jury defendant’s loathsome character”.”
Under current New York law, evidence of prior bad acts is admissible in limited circumstances, such as to prove motive or intent. However, these decisions are primarily guided by judicial precedent rather than explicit statutory rules.
In response to the New York Court of Appeal’s judgment, the new bill seeks to codify the admissibility of prior sexual offenses, allowing them to be considered in sex crimes cases even if the allegations are not directly related to the charges at hand. The bill also allows judges to exclude such evidence if it would cause undue prejudice against the defendant.
The bill mirrors the federal standard in the Federal Rule of Evidence, which states:
In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.
Similar provisions have been adopted in more than a dozen states, including California, Texas and Illinois. For example, California law permits judges to admit evidence showing a defendant’s propensity to commit sexual assault, providing a broader basis for including prior bad acts.
Supporters argue that allowing evidence of prior sexual offenses helps establish a clear pattern of behavior by alleged offenders. Assembly Member Amy Paulin, a sponsor of the bill, said, “Sex offense trials often rest on the testimony of the survivor, whose credibility is then attacked. That’s why patterns of behavior must be allowed as evidence. Sexual assault survivors have already gone through enough trauma. Now that the Weinstein case has been overturned, it’s more important than ever to pass this bill.”
They also contend that the legislation is crucial to protect victims’ rights and ensure that relevant evidence is not unfairly excluded in sex crimes cases. Senate Deputy Leader Michael Gianaris, who sponsored the bill, stated, “Victims of sexual assault deserve the ability to share their experiences when their abuser is charged with a new sexual offense. This proposal would help brave survivors tell their stories and bring New York in alignment with federal rules of evidence.”
However, critics of the bill raise concerns about its potential impact on defendants’ rights and the fairness of criminal proceedings. The Legal Aid Society warned that the proposed legislation “would create a definite risk of unfair prejudice to the person accused of a crime, create a confusion of the issues for the jury, promote the troubling assumption that defendants have an apparent propensity to commit the crime at trial if they have committed a similar crime in the past, and, in short, will move us so far away from any sense of fairness and due process that it must be rejected as a dangerous undoing of our system of criminal trials.”
Weinstein, who remains jailed in New York following a separate conviction in California on similar charges, continues to maintain his innocence, asserting that any sexual activity was consensual. The Manhattan district attorney’s office plans to retry Weinstein as early as September, potentially using the new legal standards if the bill is enacted. “We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault,” said Emily Tuttle, deputy director of communications and senior advisor for the office.
