People v. Powell
Decision Date | 14 May 2015 |
Docket Number | 105468 |
Citation | 128 A.D.3d 1174,9 N.Y.S.3d 452,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04168 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Yockol POWELL, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
128 A.D.3d 1174
9 N.Y.S.3d 452
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04168
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Yockol POWELL, Appellant.
105468
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 14, 2015.
Donna Maria Lasher, Youngsville, for appellant.
James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Katy Schlichtman of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., EGAN JR., ROSE and LYNCH, JJ.
Opinion
LYNCH, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered March 22, 2012, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of rape in the third degree, criminal trespass in the second degree (two counts), endangering the welfare of a child and criminal contempt in the second degree.
Defendant was charged by indictment with two counts of burglary in the second degree, rape in the first degree, endangering the welfare of a child and criminal contempt in the second degree stemming from events occurring in the victim's apartment in May 2011. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the latter two charges and the lesser included charges of rape in the third degree and two counts of criminal trespass in the second degree. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of three years, followed by 15 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals and we affirm.
Defendant challenges the verdict as both legally insufficient and as against the weight of the evidence, focusing primarily on the contention the People failed to prove that defendant
engaged in nonconsensual sexual intercourse with the victim. In order to preserve a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant must make a specific motion to dismiss at the close of the proof (see People v. Kolupa, 13 N.Y.3d 786, 787, 887 N.Y.S.2d 536, 916 N.E.2d 430 [2009] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 [2008] ; People v. Desmond, 118 A.D.3d 1131, 1132, 988 N.Y.S.2d 703 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1002, 997 N.Y.S.2d 120, 21 N.E.3d 572 [2014] ). A review of the record here shows that defendant's legal insufficiency claim was preserved only as to the rape conviction. Nonetheless, in deciding whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, we necessarily review the legal sufficiency of the evidence on each charge (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ).
With respect to the rape conviction, the People were required to prove that defendant “engage[d] in sexual intercourse with another person without such person's consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some factor other than incapacity to consent” (Penal Law § 130.25[3] ). A “lack of consent” is further defined as “circumstances under which ... the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in [the sexual] act, and a reasonable person in the actor's situation would have understood such person's words and acts as an expression of lack of consent to such act under all of the circumstances” (Penal Law § 130.05[2][d] ; see People v. Worden, 22 N.Y.3d 982, 984, 980 N.Y.S.2d 317, 3 N.E.3d 654 [2013] ).
The victim and defendant had four children together during a 12–year relationship, including a 10 year old who testified at trial (hereinafter the child). Two days prior to the events at issue, the victim
moved into an apartment with the children. Defendant did not live in the apartment and had not been given a key. The victim testified that, on the evening of May 25, 2011, she returned home with her children and found defendant inside the apartment. An altercation ensued in which defendant struck the victim multiple times. After the child screamed and threw a wheel at defendant, defendant told the child that the victim was a “bozo ass bitch. She deserves what she gets” and pushed the child into a bedroom. The altercation resumed and defendant threw the victim to the floor while kicking her in the ribs. After several minutes, defendant then asked, “[W]hat would you do if I raped you, would you tell the police?” The victim testified that she did not respond, explaining that in “domestic violence cases, they tell you just go along with it, you know, just to try to get [the] abuser away.” The victim and defendant then engaged in sexual intercourse in her bedroom. The victim testified that, although she was trying to be quiet because her infant child was in the room, she “told him to stop
We recognize that the victim was a reluctant witness who wanted to maintain her relationship with defendant. She explained that it was common for the parties to engage in sexual intercourse after a verbal or physical altercation. When County Court inquired whether the sexual intercourse was against her will, she responded “not necessarily.” Notwithstanding the victim's equivocation, the record shows that she had been beaten and injured prior to the act of intercourse and, consequently, asked defendant to stop during the act. Moreover, the child testified that she witnessed the physical...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Thorpe
...at the close of the People's proof, his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved (see People v. Powell, 128 A.D.3d 1174, 1175, 9 N.Y.S.3d 452 [2015] ; People v. Junior, 119 A.D.3d 1228, 1229, 990 N.Y.S.2d 689 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1044, 998 N.Y.S.2d 314, 23 N......
-
People v. McCommons
...claims related to the home invasion and included no arguments pertaining to the convenience store shooting (see People v. Powell, 128 A.D.3d 1174, 1175, 9 N.Y.S.3d 452 [2015] ; People v. Barringer, 54 A.D.3d 442, 443, 862 N.Y.S.2d 214 [2008], lvs. denied 11 N.Y.3d 830, 836, 868 N.Y.S.2d 604......
-
People v. Tucker
...is not preserved for our review due to her failure to advance it specifically in her motion to dismiss (see People v. Powell, 128 A.D.3d 1174, 1175, 9 N.Y.S.3d 452 [2015] ; People v. Andrews, 127 A.D.3d 1417, 1419, 7 N.Y.S.3d 647 [2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1159, 15 N.Y.S.3d 291, 36 N.E.3d......
-
People v. Smith
...merit (see Penal Law §§ 130.05, 130.25 ; People v. Newton , 8 N.Y.3d 460, 464, 835 N.Y.S.2d 546, 867 N.E.2d 397 ; People v. Powell , 128 A.D.3d 1174, 1176, 9 N.Y.S.3d 452 ). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to eac......