## Facts

- Near midnight on November 10, 1929, in Brooklyn, Joseph Zackowitz shot and killed Frank Coppola during a street confrontation near Zackowitz’s apartment.
- Minutes earlier, Coppola and several companions were repairing a car; one of them made a lewd proposition to Zackowitz’s wife as she walked by.
- Zackowitz, after drinking earlier that evening, found his wife crying, confronted the men with profanity, and threatened that if they did not leave he would “come back and bump them all off.”
- Zackowitz returned with his wife to their apartment; after hearing the details again, he went back to the street and another altercation occurred.
- Evidence at trial indicated Zackowitz kicked Coppola and Coppola advanced with a wrench; Zackowitz produced a pistol and fired one fatal shot.
- Zackowitz left the scene with his wife, discarded the pistol during a taxi ride to Manhattan, and was arrested on January 7, 1930.
- The contested trial issue was Zackowitz’s mental state at the moment of the shooting: deliberate, premeditated intent to kill versus a sudden, anger- and alcohol-fueled impulse.
- Over objection, the prosecution introduced evidence that Zackowitz kept additional weapons at home (three pistols and a tear-gas gun) that were not used in the homicide.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecution may introduce evidence that a defendant possessed other weapons not used in the charged homicide to suggest a violent character and support an inference of premeditation.
2. Whether admitting such evidence improperly invites a propensity inference and unfairly prejudices the jury on the degree of homicide.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the first-degree murder conviction and ordered a new trial.
- The court held it was error to admit evidence of additional weapons kept in the defendant’s apartment when they were unconnected to the killing.
- The court concluded the evidence was offered to portray the defendant as having a “murderous disposition,” creating an unacceptable risk that the jury would decide degree based on character rather than the circumstances of the shooting.
- The error was not harmless because the case turned on a close assessment of the defendant’s state of mind.

## Legal Principles

- In a criminal prosecution, the defendant’s character is not in issue unless the defendant elects to place it in issue; the prosecution may not introduce character evidence to show a disposition to commit crime.
- Evidence of other acts or circumstances is admissible only when it is directly relevant to a legitimate, non-propensity purpose (such as motive, intent, identity, common plan, or absence of mistake) and is sufficiently connected to the charged offense.
- Possession of weapons not used in the charged crime is inadmissible when its relevance depends on the forbidden inference that a person who keeps weapons is more likely to have acted with criminal intent on the charged occasion.
- Where the degree of homicide depends on a fine distinction in mens rea, courts must exclude evidence that diverts the jury from the immediate facts to generalized moral condemnation of the defendant.

## Conclusion

Because the prosecution used unrelated weapons found in the defendant’s home to suggest a violent propensity and bolster a finding of premeditation, the court found the evidence improperly prejudicial on the decisive question of degree, reversed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.


People v. Zackowitz, 254 N.Y. 192, 172 N.E. 466 (N.Y. 1930)