From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Carter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 23, 1987
126 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

January 23, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On this record, there is nothing repugnant about defendant's conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree, even though the jury acquitted him of sodomy in the first degree involving conduct during the same incident (see, People v. Lewis, 112 A.D.2d 702; People v Crandall, 53 A.D.2d 956, affd 45 N.Y.2d 851). Here, the proof was legally sufficient to establish that defendant subjected the victim to "sexual contact" by forcible compulsion (Penal Law § 130.65). Sodomy in the first degree requires proof that defendant engaged in "deviate sexual intercourse" with the victim by forcible compulsion (Penal Law § 130.50). Since the elements of the crime of which he was convicted differ from the elements of the crime of which he was acquitted, there is no merit to defendant's claim of repugnancy (see, People v Williams, 124 A.D.2d 993). We have reviewed defendant's other claims of error and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Carter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 23, 1987
126 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Carter

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KENNETH CARTER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 23, 1987

Citations

126 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Paz

Defendant's claim that the verdicts were inconsistent or repugnant was not preserved for appellate review,…

People v. Barfield

05; People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985; People v. Price, 129 A.D.2d 745). In any event, we find that the claim…