People v. Gousse
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Littlejohn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Littlejohn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Saunders (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- People v. Taylor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, evidence of his prior conviction for robbery was properly admitted to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the instant crimes (see People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]). Here, a unique modus operandi was sufficiently established, and the Supreme Court properly found that the similarity between the crimes was probative of the defendant’s identity (see People v Gousse, 43 AD3d 958 [2007]; People v Sanabria, 266 AD2d 41 [1999]; People v Delarosa, 218 AD2d 667 [1995]). Given the court’s limiting instructions, the probative value of this evidence outweighed the potential prejudice to the defendant (see People v Balazs, 258 AD2d 658 [1999]; People v Caban, 224 AD2d 705 [1996]).
The defendant’s contention that the evidence that he planned to rob a drug seller was improperly admitted because it was not sufficiently similar to the instant crimes is both waived and
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.