People v. Sin
Issues before the Court: Whether the court should have permitted evidence of prior instances of sexual assault against Hu Sin’s other sisters-in-law?
Factual Background: Hu Sin was charged with raping his sister-in-law. He argued consent— that the two were having an affair and she accused him of rape when her son walked in on them. The CW, by contrast, alleged that, after she rebuffed his advance, he forcibly raped her. She also alleged that, during the sexual assault, he told her: “I am waiting for all your sister. I want to do like this.” The prosecution sought to introduce evidence that Mr. Sin had attempted to rape two of the CW’s sisters. The court granted the prosecution’s Molineux motion and allowed the testimony for purposes of considering Mr. Sin’s “guilty knowledge,” that his actions “were not the product of accident or mistake,” and “that his actions were part of a common scheme or plan.” One of the two sisters also testified that he told her he wanted to “rape all of her family.”
Held: The Court held that the Molineux evidence was properly admitted both to prove intent, given the consent defense and, under the “unique facts of this case,” to provide background information regarding Mr. Sin’s relationship with the CW and the family’s dynamics.
CAL Observes: This decision is an interesting counterpoint/in conversation with the Court’s decision last year in Weinstein, where Singas dissented. Here, she wrote the majority opinion and was able to gain majority support for her prior assessment that Molineux is especially probative in cases involving acquaintances where there is a consent defense offered. It remains to be seen why, having attempted to rape his other sisters-in-law makes it any more or less likely that he did so here absent a propensity inference. Because that observation was the basis for the Court’s reversal in Weinstein, Singas was compelled to “distinguish” that decision on the basis that the Molineux evidence was different from the charged acts and because the case, involving multiple complainants, already had prejudicial “quasi-Molineux” evidence.
The evidence was also permissible to contextualize Mr. Sin’s alleged statement during the rape about the CW’s sisters and because he had apparently told one of the sisters that if she ever disclosed the assault, he would rape another of her sisters, which she then did. Wilson, concurring alone, would have admitted the evidence for an even narrower but related reason— not as Molineux, but to clarify the CW’s statement, which came in via a Burmese translator apparently somewhat ambiguously.
Rivera, who wrote the majority opinion in Weinstein, also separately concurred in the result. She would have allowed the testimony to complete the narrative/clarify the family dynamic and also as evidence of Mr. Sin’s apparent MO of sexually assaulting his wife’s sister.