People v. Foote
| Decision Date | 01 June 1998 |
| Citation | 674 N.Y.S.2d 69,251 A.D.2d 346 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5286 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Herbert FOOTE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (William Ramos, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Sholom J. Twersky and Michael A. Morelli, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MILLER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, FRIEDMANN and LUCIANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered March 7, 1995, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the third count of the indictment charging rape in the first degree is dismissed, with leave to the People, should they be so advised, to resubmit any appropriate charges arising out of the conduct underlying that count to another Grand Jury.
The indictment in this case charged the defendant with, among other things, three counts of rape in the first degree. At the trial, however, the complainant described four specific times that the defendant allegedly forced her to have sexual intercourse and testified that, in total, the defendant had placed his penis in her vagina approximately eight times. During the jury charge, the court did not link the testimony of vaginal intercourse sequentially or otherwise to the different counts of the indictment. Therefore, as correctly asserted by the defendant at trial and on appeal, the counts of the indictment were duplicitous (see, People v. Jiminez, 239 A.D.2d 360, 657 N.Y.S.2d 735; People v. Jelinek, 224 A.D.2d 717, 638 N.Y.S.2d 731, cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 251, 136 L.Ed.2d 178; People v. Davila, 198 A.D.2d 371, 603 N.Y.S.2d 185). The jury ultimately returned a verdict convicting the defendant of only the third count of rape, and it is not possible on appellate review to determine what conduct of the defendant the jury found supported that count.
Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the court erred in recharging the jury and ordering further deliberations.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Singh
...multiple acts of rape, and are therefore void as duplicitous (see People v. Jean, 117 A.D.3d 875, 985 N.Y.S.2d 669 ; People v. Foote, 251 A.D.2d 346, 674 N.Y.S.2d 69 ; People v. Jelinek, 224 A.D.2d 717, 718, 638 N.Y.S.2d 731 ). We therefore vacate the convictions under counts 2 through 16 a......
-
People v. Jean
...linked “the testimony of vaginal intercourse sequentially or otherwise to the different counts of the indictment” ( People v. Foote, 251 A.D.2d 346, 346, 674 N.Y.S.2d 69). Accordingly, where the jury found the defendant guilty of only one or two of the crimes charged for that month, which o......
-
People v. Gerardi
...9 N.Y.S.3d 324 ; People v. Atta, 126 A.D.3d 713, 5 N.Y.S.3d 455 ; People v. Jean, 117 A.D.3d 875, 985 N.Y.S.2d 669 ; People v. Foote, 251 A.D.2d 346, 674 N.Y.S.2d 69 ; People v. Jelinek, 224 A.D.2d 717, 718, 638 N.Y.S.2d 731 ). Accordingly, we vacate the convictions of rape in the second de......
-
People v. Dukes
...7 N.Y.3d 811, 822 N.Y.S.2d 486, 855 N.E.2d 802 ; see People v. Casiano, 117 A.D.3d 1507, 1510, 984 N.Y.S.2d 781 ; People v. Foote, 251 A.D.2d 346, 346, 674 N.Y.S.2d 69 ). Here, count four charged criminal sexual act in the first degree regarding an alleged instance in which defendant forcib......