People v. Rios
| Decision Date | 17 June 1982 |
| Citation | 88 A.D.2d 1056,452 N.Y.S.2d 759 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ralph RIOS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert R. Snashall, Albany, for appellant.
Sol Greenberg, Albany County Dist. Atty., Albany (F. Patrick Jeffers, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAIN, J. P., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered September 25, 1980, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of kidnapping in the second degree.
On April 9, 1980, at about 6:00 P.M., Debra Drozdzal allowed her three and one-half-year-old son out to play on the front porch. Approximately 10 minutes later, she noticed he was gone. After making a quick search, she notified the authorities that her son was missing. With the aid of information from a confidential informant, the police located the child in defendant's unlit apartment, crying but unharmed. Entry had been blocked by a large chair which had been pushed against the door. Defendant was discovered hiding under a pile of dirty clothes. At trial he testified that while walking down the street he observed the child, wet, cold and hungry, and only sought to furnish food and shelter. He denied harboring any intention of sexually molesting the child.
Defendant maintains that section 135.20 of the Penal Law is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. That section states that a person is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree when he "abducts another person". Included in the statutory definition of "abduct" is to
restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by * * * secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found * * *. (Penal Law, § 135.00, subd. 2.)
And to "restrain" a person means to:
restrict a person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful. A person is so moved or confined "without consent" when such is accomplished by * * * (b) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old * * * and the parent * * * has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement. (Penal Law, § 135.00, subd. 1.)
We perceive no ambiguity in the quoted language. It describes clearly the conduct which it prohibits and it is capable of being understood by a person of ordinary intelligence (People v. Cruz, 48 N.Y.2d 419, 423-424, 423 N.Y.S.2d 625, 399 N.E.2d 513).
Defendant's guilt was amply supported by the evidence. He led the victim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gonzalez
...N.Y.S.2d 591; People v. Tocco, 114 A.D.2d 385, 493 N.Y.S.2d 902; People v. Cresci, 112 A.D.2d 246, 491 N.Y.S.2d 695; People v. Rios, 88 A.D.2d 1056, 1057, 452 N.Y.S.2d 759, affd. 60 N.Y.2d 764, 469 N.Y.S.2d 670, 457 N.E.2d 776; see also, People v. Balcom, 171 A.D.2d 1028, 569 N.Y.S.2d 35 [T......
-
People v. Wong, J-4
...of a merger. Similarly distinguishable is People v. Rios, 60 N.Y.2d 764, 469 N.Y.S.2d 670, 457 N.E.2d 776, affirming 88 A.D.2d 1056, 452 N.Y.S.2d 759, where both the Court of Appeals and Appellate Division, Third Department, found merger to be inapplicable to the second degree kidnapping ch......
-
People v. Rand
...merit (see, People v. Salimi, 159 A.D.2d 658, 552 N.Y.S.2d 964; People v. Valero, 134 A.D.2d 635, 521 N.Y.S.2d 527; People v. Rios, 88 A.D.2d 1056, 452 N.Y.S.2d 759, aff'd 60 N.Y.2d 764, 469 N.Y.S.2d 670, 457 N.E.2d 776). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satis......
- People v. Rios