4 No. 132
   The People &c.,
   Respondent,
   v.
   Enrique Rojas,
   Appellant.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2001 NY Int. 115

   October 25, 2001

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Philip Rothschild, for appellant.
   Mark Moody, for respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________

   ROSENBLATT, J.:

   In the case before us, defendant contends that the trial court
   committed reversible error by allowing the prosecution to introduce
   evidence of a prior alleged crime. Defendant relies on People v
   Molineux (168 NY 264 (1901)), which prohibits the introduction of such
   evidence unless it falls within a limited number of exceptions to its
   rule. We conclude, however, that because defendant opened the door to
   this proof based on the combination of his opening statement and
   cross- examination of a prosecution witness, the challenged proof was
   properly admitted.

   While in custody in the Onondaga Justice Center jail, defendant
   allegedly attempted to assault another inmate. Jail personnel
   considered defendant to be dangerous, and reassigned him to segregated
   custody in the jail's "behavioral unit." To reduce the threat of
   injury to inmates and others, jail policy prohibited inmates in this
   unit from wearing fabric clothing, and instead required them to wear
   paper clothes. After defendant initially refused to trade his fabric
   pants for paper ones, several guards entered his cell to supervise his
   exchange of clothing. Defendant punched one of the guards in the face,
   dislocating his jaw. A grand jury indicted defendant for the assault
   on the guard and the prior attempted assault on the inmate. County
   Court granted defendant's motion to sever the charges and try the
   assault on the guard first. That case is now before us.

   During pre-trial proceedings, the defense moved to preclude the