People v. Krzykowski
| Decision Date | 18 April 2002 |
| Citation | 293 A.D.2d 877,742 N.Y.S.2d 138 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ADAM KRZYKOWSKI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Defendant was indicted by a grand jury for the crimes of rape in the first degree and burglary in the second degree stemming from an incident which occurred in the early morning hours of November 21, 1999. It was alleged that after defendant, a friend he had known for many years (hereinafter the victim), their respective spouses and others engaged in an evening of drinking, defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim while she slept. Found guilty of rape in the first degree after a nonjury trial, defendant was sentenced by Supreme Court to a determinate term of 10½ years in prison. He now appeals.
Defendant argues that, due to the insufficiency of the evidence at trial, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We disagree. At trial, the victim testified that after an evening of drinking at two local bars with a group of family and friends which included defendant, she went to her sister-in-law's home accompanied by her husband, defendant and others. Shortly after arriving there, she went upstairs to bed. Her next recollection was a rocking motion in the bed and the thought that her husband was in bed with her. The victim then looked behind her and saw defendant, who was having sexual intercourse with her. She further testified that defendant held her by her waist until he let go and she thereafter got up, shocked and terrified, put her jeans on, punched or slapped defendant twice in the face, yelled at him and asked him what he was doing and ran downstairs and out of the house. She also testified that as she was walking to her car, which she had left at the last bar, defendant pulled up and verbally accosted her. After retrieving her car, she returned to her sister-in-law's home and thereafter reported the incident to the police as a rape.
Defendant testified that, after the victim had gone to bed, he and the victim's husband talked for about an hour, then the husband asked defendant to drive him home. After dropping the victim's husband off, defendant returned to the sister-in-law's home to retrieve his house keys and, because he was tired, asked the sister-in-law if he could sleep there. After receiving permission to do so, he went upstairs and laid down in what he believed was an unoccupied bed. Shortly thereafter, he felt a hand come over his side and rub his crotch. He rolled over and saw the victim, they began "fooling around" and then had sex, with defendant positioned behind the victim who was on her side with her arm around the back of his neck. Defendant stated that the victim did not look at him. He testified that when he attempted to change positions and get on top of her, the victim "freaked out," got out of bed and accused him of raping her. He testified that he did speak to the victim shortly thereafter as she was walking to her car and she continued to accuse him of rape. Later that day, defendant called the police and voluntarily went into the police station and gave them a statement regarding the incident.
As charged here, "[a] person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he * * * engages in sexual intercourse with another person * * * [w]ho is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless" (Penal Law § 130.35 [2]). "`Physically helpless' means that a person is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act" (Penal Law § 130.00 [7]). Reviewing the record, we conclude that the People's proof, when considered in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621; People v Spaulding, 247 AD2d 762, 764), was legally sufficient to "satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of [rape in the first degree]" (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). It is clear that while the testimony of the victim's sister-in-law was legally insufficient to satisfy the proof and burden requirements of burglary in the second degree as charged in the indictment, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marra v. Martuscello
...6 N.Y.3d 827 (N.Y. 2006); New York v. Manning, 81 A.D.3d 1181, 1181 (N.Y. App. Div., 3d Dept. 2011); New York v. Krzykowski, 293 A.D.2d 877, 879 (N.Y. App. Div., 3d Dept. 2002); New York v, Irving, 151 A.D.2d 605, 605-06 (N.Y. App. Div., 2d Dept. 1989); and New York v. Copp, 169 Misc.2d 757......
-
Bjork v. Superintendent, 9:15-CV-1097 (LEK)
...Testimony that a victim "was asleep when the intercourse occurred satisfies the element of physical helplessness." People v. Krzykowski, 742 N.Y.S.2d 138, 140 (App. Div. 2002). Here, the victim testified that she consumed numerous alcoholic beverages at several establishments on the evening......
-
People v. Doran
...must deny the defense request on this ground. [See People v. Hure, 16 A.D.3d 774, 790 N.Y.S.2d 591 (2005) and People v. Krzykowski, 293 A.D.2d 877, 742 N.Y.S.2d 138 (2002), lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 643, 769 N.Y.S.2d 209, 801 N.E.2d 430 (2003) ].II. RESENTENCEWhether or not this court's sentenc......
-
People v. Granger
...13 A.D.3d 991, 992, 787 N.Y.S.2d 466 [2004], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 789, 801 N.Y.S.2d 810, 835 N.E.2d 670 [2005] ; People v. Krzykowski, 293 A.D.2d 877, 879, 742 N.Y.S.2d 138 [2002], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 643, 769 N.Y.S.2d 209, 801 N.E.2d 430 [2003] ; People v. Thiessen, 158 A.D.2d 737, 740, 550......