People v. Zackowitz

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

Quick Summary

Mr. Zackowitz (defendant) was convicted of first-degree murder following the shooting of Frank Coppola in Kings County after a confrontation arising from an insult aimed at Zackowitz’s wife by Coppola and others. The issue in the appeal was whether the trial court erred in admitting character evidence based on Zackowitz’s ownership of multiple weapons, suggesting a propensity for violence and premeditated intent. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, ordering a new trial, concluding that the introduction of such character evidence was improper and prejudicial.

Facts of the Case

On November 10, 1929, in Kings County, Mr. Zackowitz shot and killed Frank Coppola. The incident occurred after Mr. Zackowitz, who had been drinking, found his wife distressed by an insult from a group of young men, leading to a confrontation that ended in Coppola’s death. Initially, Zackowitz threatened the group, left, and then returned armed with a pistol, ultimately using it in a conflict where Coppola allegedly threatened him with a wrench.

Key to the prosecution’s argument of premeditation was evidence of Zackowitz’s possession of multiple weapons at his home, which they suggested indicated a propensity for violence and a premeditated intent to kill, a concept critical to Evidence Law concerning Character Evidence and Propensity.

Procedural Posture and History

  1. Zackowitz was charged with first-degree murder following the shooting of Frank Coppola.
  2. The trial court convicted Zackowitz of first-degree murder, finding the murder was premeditated based on his actions and the presence of multiple weapons in his home.
  3. Zackowitz appealed the decision, challenging the use of character evidence relating to his ownership of multiple weapons as indicative of a propensity for violence, which he argued prejudiced the jury against him.

I.R.A.C. Format


  • Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the defendant, Mr. Zackowitz, possessing multiple weapons at his residence as indicative of his character, and
  • Whether such evidence unduly influenced the jury’s determination that the homicide was premeditated and deliberate, thereby warranting a conviction of first-degree murder.

Rule of Law

The admissibility of character evidence, specifically under the rule that character evidence is generally not admissible in a criminal prosecution unless the defendant chooses to make it an issue. The rule further specifies that evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait (Wigmore, Evidence, vol. 1, §§ 55, 192).

An exception exists where such evidence is directly connected to the crime, such as indicating motive, intent, or absence of mistake (People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264).

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court highlighted that the presence of multiple weapons in Mr. Zackowitz’s apartment, which were not used in the homicide, was presented to suggest a predisposition towards violence and criminal behavior, thus characterizing him as having a murderous propensity.

This application of character evidence was deemed erroneous because it was not directly relevant to the specific act of homicide being adjudicated, nor did it serve to establish motive, intent, or absence of mistake regarding the instant offense.

The Court criticized this approach for potentially prejudicing the jury by suggesting that possession of the weapons alone indicated a likelihood of premeditated murder, regardless of the specific circumstances of the encounter with Coppola.


The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment of conviction for first-degree murder and ordered a new trial, emphasizing that the admission of character evidence regarding the defendant’s possession of multiple weapons was improper and prejudicial, influencing the jury’s decision on premeditation and deliberation in the murder charge.

Dissenting Opinions

Judge Pound, Crane and Hubbs dissented, arguing that the evidence of the defendant’s possession of multiple weapons was admissible as part of the entire deed and helped establish the defendant’s preparation and intent to commit the crime charged. They contended that this evidence did not unfairly prejudice the defendant and that its admission was not substantial enough error to overturn the conviction given the overall evidence of his guilt.

Key Takeaways

  1. Character evidence and propensity are not generally admissible unless directly related to the specific crime charged.
  2. Evidence that may prejudice a jury without contributing to a material fact in dispute is impermissible.
  3. The Court must ensure that evidence admitted does not unfairly characterize a defendant and lead to a conviction based on character rather than actions relevant to the crime.

Relevant FAQs of this case

Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Evidence