People v. Roman

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Samuel

    239 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    The defendant contends that the prosecution failed to prove the element of forcible compulsion in connection with the charges of rape in the first degree. That claim was not preserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05) and, in any event, is without merit. The forcible compulsion element of rape in the first degree was established by evidence that the defendant used his superior age, size, and strength to overpower his victim ( see, e.g., People v. Hodges, 204 A.D.2d 739; People v Roman, 179 A.D.2d 352; People v. Yeaden, 156 A.D.2d 208). The victim was also forcibly compelled to submit to the defendant's sexual demands by his repeated threats to harm her twelve-year-old sister ( see, People v. Ramos, 200 A.D.2d 601). In addition, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction on all five counts of rape in the third degree.

  2. People v. Miller

    226 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 25 times

    She also stated that, at such time, she told defendant that it hurt but that defendant told her if she told anyone she would get in trouble. Again, given the victim's age, her isolation at defendant's home, and the size and strength discrepancy between the victim and defendant, the jury could have reasonably found that defendant accomplished the sexual contact by physical force through pinning the child down and an implied threat which placed the child victim in fear of immediate physical injury ( see, e.g., People v. Dehler, 216 A.D.2d 643, 644, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 734; People v. Roman, 179 A.D.2d 352, 353, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 952; People v. Concepcion, supra, at 327-328). We find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant subjected both child victims to sexual contact by forcible compulsion.

  3. People v. Ferrer

    209 A.D.2d 714 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 6 times
    Holding evidence was legally sufficient to establish forcible compulsion when the victim repeatedly attempted to push away defendant, who "used his superior physical strength and an implied threat of harm to rape, sodomize, and sexually abuse" the victim

    Accordingly, the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was legally sufficient to establish the element of forcible compulsion (see, Penal Law § 130.00; People v Hodges, 204 A.D.2d 739; People v. Roman, 179 A.D.2d 352; People v Kellar, 174 A.D.2d 848; People v. Rugg, 141 A.D.2d 925). Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

  4. People v. Trotter

    198 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 2 times

    The People's expert opined that this condition was the result of trauma associated with resistance. Defendant denied having intercourse with the victim and two witnesses, who were in the apartment when this incident occurred, testified that there was no struggle between the victim and defendant nor did they hear any screams. In our view this evidence amply supports the conclusion that defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim by forcible compulsion (see, People v Cook, 186 A.D.2d 879, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 761). Defendant's proof does not affect our finding as it simply created an issue for the jury to resolve (see, People v Roman, 179 A.D.2d 352, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 952). We have examined defendant's challenges to County Court's evidentiary rulings and find that they lack substance.

  5. People v. Wilson

    192 A.D.2d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 5 times

    We disagree. Defendant confronted the victim in the back of his van and when she refused his order to lie down and take off her clothes, he pushed her down, lay on top of her and pulled her clothes down. The victim's testimony, if believed, was sufficient to prove forcible compulsion (see, People v Sargeant, 128 A.D.2d 914, 915). Her testimony was also supported by her sister, who in large part corroborated what the victim testified to. This testimony also established the element of forcible compulsion (see, People v Roman, 179 A.D.2d 352, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 952). Levine, Crew III, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur.

  6. People v. Soto

    192 Misc. 2d 161 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2002)   Cited 1 times
    Explaining the differences among the offenses of: sexual abuse in the third degree, a violation of N.Y. PENAL LAW § 130.55 (McKinney 2002), that includes "mere touching without consent"; "forcible sexual touching," a violation of N.Y. PENAL LAW § 130.52 (McKinney 2002), that "includes such acts as `squeezing, grabbing, or pinching of such person's sexual or other intimate parts,'" which are "all acts that can be accomplished without any forcible compulsion, as that term is defined in statutory and case law. Indeed, such acts frequently do not involve any forcible compulsion as that term is legally defined" but do involve "something more than mere touching without consent"; and "sexual abuse in the first degree", a violation of N.Y. PENAL LAW § 130.65 (McKinney 2002) that occurs when a person "subjects another person to sexual contact: 1. by forcible compulsion."

    Forcible compulsion can also be established by evidence that the defendant used his superior age, size or strength over the victim to engage in a "physical act directed against the victim." (People v Dorsey, 104 Misc 2d 963, 971 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 1980] [where the court held that the evidence supported forcible compulsion in that the defendant was much taller and heavier than the victim, and stopped an elevator between floors to trap the victim alone]; see also, People v Orda, 180 Misc 2d 450 [Sup Ct, NY County 1999], citing People v Roman, 179 AD2d 352 [1st Dept 1992]; People v Ayers, 65 AD2d 862 [3d Dept 1978]; People v Pace, 145 AD2d 834 [3d Dept 1988].) The forcible touching statute includes such acts as "squeezing, grabbing, or pinching of such person's sexual or other intimate parts."

  7. People v. Orda

    180 Misc. 2d 450 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999)   Cited 6 times
    Finding sufficient evidence of "[f]orcible compulsion" given "great disparity in physical condition between defendant and his quadriplegic charge," and noting that victim "in fact, is physically helpless," although not legally so under "statutory definition which deserves reexamination"

    ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS "Forcible compulsion can be established by evidence that the defendant used his superior age, size and strength to prevent the victim from escaping, and to compel [the victim] to have sex * * * with him" ( People v. Roman, 179 A.D.2d 352, 353 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 952; see also, People v. Dehler, 216 A.D.2d 643 [3d Dept 1995], lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 734; Matter of Bruce T., 190 A.D.2d 805 [2d Dept 1993]; People v. Yeaden, 156 A.D.2d 208 [1st Dept 1989], lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 872). The absence of some perceivable threat of harm in compelling the sex complained of, in and of itself, does not negate a forcible compulsion finding.