People v. Clevenstine

• Decision Date: 24 December 2009
• Docket Number: 102251
• Citation: 891 N.Y.S.2d 511,68 A.D.3d 1448,2009 NY Slip Op 9556
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD CLEVENSTINE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

68 A.D.3d 1448

2009 NY Slip Op 9556

891 N.Y.S.2d 511

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD CLEVENSTINE, Appellant.

102251

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.

Decided December 24, 2009.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered August 28, 2008, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of rape in the second degree (two counts), rape in the third degree (three counts) criminal sexual act in the third degree, attempted criminal sexual act in the third degree, sexual abuse in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts).

LAHTINEN, J.

Defendant, who was in his late 50s, befriended a family and used that relationship as a means to acquire access to the family's two teenage daughters (born in 1990 and 1992), whom he allegedly subjected to various sex-related activities from January 2006 to August 2007. His conduct was discovered when his wife accidentally found, on their computer in defendant's MySpace account, saved instant message communications between defendant and the younger victim revealing sexually explicit discussions and indicating that the two had engaged in sexual intercourse. She separately confronted the younger victim and defendant, both of whom made comments consistent with confirming the sexual activity. About a week later, defendant's wife notified the State Police, and the ensuing investigation eventually resulted in an 11-count superseding indictment, charging six felonies and five misdemeanors for various acts allegedly perpetrated by defendant against the two girls. He was convicted of all 11 counts following a jury trial and sentenced to an aggregate minimum prison term of 24 2/3 years (which was adjusted as per Penal Law § 70.30), plus postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

We find merit in defendant's argument that the time frame alleged in count one of the superseding indictment was excessive. "[A] nine-month time frame alleging a noncontinuous act in an accusatory instrument is generally per se unreasonable" (People v Sedlock, 8 NY3d 535, 538 [2007]; see People v Beauchamp, 74 NY2d 639, 641 [1989]). Count one asserts a single act of sexual intercourse involving defendant and the younger victim occurring between April 1, 2006 and January 18, 2007. The alleged time frame exceeds nine months. Moreover, during that time, the younger victim was 13 (and turned 14) and her testimony (given when she was 16) does not reveal significant cognitive difficulties or an inability to recall events. In fact, she was able to set various other acts—including additional instances of sexual intercourse—in much narrower time frames. The People failed to establish a reason for the long time frame in count one and, under the circumstances, that count should have been dismissed (see People v Bennett, 57 AD3d 688, 690 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 781 [2009]; People v Irvine, 52 AD3d 866, 867 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 737 [2008]).

Defendant asserts that his convictions for rape in the third degree as alleged in count three and endangering the welfare of a child as alleged in count seven were not supported by legally sufficient evidence and were against the weight of the evidence. His general dismissal motion failed to preserve his legal sufficiency argument (see People v Gibbs, 34 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2006]). There is, however, no preservation requirement for our weight of the evidence review (see People v Mann, 63 AD3d 1372, 1373 [2009]). Defendant contends that there was no evidence indicating that the conduct constituting endangering the welfare of a child occurred in early 2006, as alleged in the indictment. While the younger victim's testimony on direct examination was insufficient as to when the conduct occurred, on redirect she clarified the conduct as occurring in January or February 2006. Defendant further argues that there was no evidence of sexual intercourse in August 2007 as alleged in count three. This argument fails since the younger victim testified that the last time they had sexual intercourse was at defendant's house in August 2007, and she specifically recalled that it occurred five days before she was confronted by defendant's wife, which occurred on August 13, 2007. We have otherwise reviewed the testimony and evidence in the record as to these and the other crimes of which defendant was convicted and, after independently weighing and considering the proof as well as assessing the evidence in light of the elements charged to the jury, we are unpersuaded that defendant's convictions on counts 2 to 11 were against the weight of the evidence (see People v Johnson, 10 NY3d 875, 878 [2008]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]).

Next, we consider defendant's contention that the computer disk containing the electronic communications that occurred between him and the victims via instant message was improperly admitted into evidence. Defendant objected to this evidence at trial upon the ground that it had not been properly authenticated. "[A]uthenticity is established by proof that...