I thought some crimes could be testified about if they were part of a pattern? Why would the judge make this mistake?
Rule of Evidence 404(b) says other crimes, wrongs or acts are not admissible to prove the defendant acted similarly, except to prove motive, intent, plan, etc. I don’t know that a 404(b) objection was the basis for the reversal, but it seems likely, esp. if there was no notice given prior to its introduction.
"Defendant was convicted by a jury for various sexual crimes against three named complainants and, on appeal, claims that he was judged, not on the conduct for which he was indicted, but on irrelevant, prejudicial, and untested allegations of prior bad acts. We conclude that 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. The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless. The only evidence against defendant was the complainants’ testimony, and the result of the court’s rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish defendant’s character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant’s right to testify. The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial."
Because the “crimes” in question were never tried.
If he had been convicted of doing them, then using them as “prior” crimes is legit.
It sounds like the NY judge was not very smart. But, that seems to be the case these days.