Judgment affirmed.
The trial court did not err in allowing the complainant to testify that he recognized the defendant because he had seen the defendant upon a prior occasion. Despite the fact that the prior observations were had during an alleged robbery, the testimony did not fall outside the limited purpose exception to the exclusionary rule, that evidence of prior crimes may be used to prove identity (see, People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264;
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
