After a jury trial, A. Agina was found guilty of false imprisonment in the first degree, attempted assault in the first degree, and assault in the second degree, for beating his wife over a 12 hour period.
Although the evidence supported the conviction, the Appellate Division, Second Department, opted to reverse and grant Agina a new trial because the Queens County Supreme Court had allowed the jury to hear testimony about the time the guy had assaulted his ex-wife.
Evidence of past bad acts is relevant when a miscreant's identity is at issue, and the behavior shows a pattern of conduct consistent with the crime charged.
Since there was no question who committed the act--because Agina's wife had testified that he beat her for an extended period of time--his former spouse's testimony was seen as prejudicial because it deprived Agina of his right to a fair trial.
Can you beat that?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use the following link: People v. Agina