People v. Martin
| Decision Date | 07 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2006-1622 N CR.,No. 2007-1693 N C,2006-1622 N CR.,2007-1693 N C |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 29149,23 Misc.3d 67,881 N.Y.S.2d 800 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS MARTIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term |
On the court's own motion, the appeals are consolidated for purposes of disposition.
Judgment of conviction reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered.
Order reversed without costs and designation vacated.
The information charged defendant with forcible touching (Penal Law § 130.52 [2]). The accusatory portion thereof provided in pertinent part as follows:
Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to dismiss the information on the ground that while Penal Law § 130.52 does not contain any subdivisions, the accusatory portion of the information purports to charge defendant with a violation of subdivision (2) of said section. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss and permitted the People to amend the information to correct the error. During the trial, defense counsel sought to have the jury instruction limited to reflect the charge as set forth in the information, which accused defendant of forcibly touching another individual for the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire. The court denied defendant's application. The court's charge tracked the language of Penal Law § 130.52, in that the jury was instructed that it could convict defendant if it found that defendant touched the sexual or other intimate parts of the victim without her consent for the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire or for the purpose of degrading or abusing the victim. The jury found defendant guilty, and defendant was sentenced to one year in the Nassau County Correctional Center. Prior to defendant's release from the correctional center, a hearing pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C was held and defendant was designated a level three sex offender.
On appeal, defendant contends that the District Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the information and in allowing the People to amend the information to reflect that Penal Law § 130.52 does not contain a subdivision. Contrary to defendant's contention, an information can be amended to correct a clerical error (see People v Massaro, 8 AD3d 408 [2004]) or a typographical error (see People v Kurtz, 175 Misc 2d 980 [1998]). We note that the amendment did not change the theory of the case and did not surprise or prejudice defendant (see People v Easton, 307 NY 336, 338 [1954]).
Defendant contends that the District Court's charge was improper since it went beyond the scope of the information and instructed the jury that defendant could be found guilty of forcible touching if he touched the sexual or other intimate parts of the victim without her consent either for the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire or for the purpose of degrading or abusing the victim.
We find that the People limited the theory of the case (see People v Wilfong, 146 Misc 2d 577 [App Term, 1st Dept 1990]), choosing to proceed on a narrower theory of prosecution than permitted by Penal Law § 130.52, to wit, charging in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hardy
...Dists. 2011) ; People v. Iqbal , 31 Misc. 3d 94, 926 N.Y.S.2d 256 (App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2011) ; People v. Martin , 23 Misc. 3d 67, 881 N.Y.S.2d 800 (App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2009) ; People v. Warren , 17 Misc. 3d 27, 844 N.Y.S.2d 563 (App. Term, 2d ......
-
People v. Barreno
...is entitled to a new trial as to count one (see Kaminski, 58 N.Y.2d at 887; Gentles, 171 A.D.3d at 472; Gachelin, 237 A.D.2d at 302; Martin, 23 Misc.3d at 70). The fact that has completed his sentence does not warrant dismissal of the charge as a matter of discretion in the interest of just......
-
People v. Iqbal
...to simplified informations, which, by definition, include simplified traffic informations (CPL 1.20[5][a]; see People v. Martin, 23 Misc.3d 67, 881 N.Y.S.2d 800 [App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2009]; see also People v. Greco, 12 Misc.3d 83, 819 N.Y.S.2d 630 [App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Di......
-
People v. Levy
...the jury with a general reckless conduct standard and failed to issue the curative charge defendant requested ( cf. People v. Martin, 23 Misc.3d 67, 69–70, 881 N.Y.S.2d 800 [App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2009], citing People v. Gachelin, 237 A.D.2d 300, 301, 654 N.Y.S.2d 393 [1997] ). A......