People v. Rockwell
| Citation | 97 A.D.2d 853,469 N.Y.S.2d 252 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas ROCKWELL, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 03 November 1983 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John M. Leonardson, Valatie, for appellant.
Charles E. Inman, Dist. Atty., Hudson (Steven J. Greenblatt, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH, LEVINE and MAIN, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County, rendered July 28, 1980, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the third degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree.
Defendant was indicted by the May, 1979 term of the Grand Jury of Columbia County in a five-count indictment charging him with two counts of sodomy in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the third degree and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree. The indictment alleged that on May 23, 1979, defendant sodomized, attempted to rape, assaulted and restrained the complainant. Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the third degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. He was sentenced to one year on the assault conviction, two to six years on the sexual abuse convictions, and two to six years on the attempted rape conviction, all sentences to run concurrently.
Complainant first met defendant in the parking lot of the College Inn where she and another girl had been involved in a heated argument. Defendant was present and engaged the complainant in a conversation and ultimately asked her for a ride home, to which she acquiesced. As he directed her to his home, she perceived that they were in an isolated area and when she attempted to turn back, defendant switched off the engine, took her car keys and made advances to her. When she attempted to ward them off, he dragged her out of the car by her hair, knocked her down, jumped on her, struck her, choked her, threatened her and perpetrated acts of sodomy and rape on her. She sustained bodily bruises, neck and mouth injuries, and internal injuries. During this attack, her car lighter was thrown outside the car window. She was finally permitted to drive defendant to where he directed. He exited in front of a parking lot after which complainant left and attempted to find her boyfriend. Not finding him, she returned home. Later she went to seek her boyfriend again and related to him the events of the preceding night. The two retraced their way to the scene of the prior night's events. A policeman stopped her for a traffic violation at which time her boyfriend told him what had occurred. The victim was escorted by the officer to the Sheriff's office where she filed a complaint. A medical examination of complainant was made.
Defendant raises several issues as to the propriety of the indictment and the constitutionality of the Grand Jury system. He urges that he was improperly indicted by the Grand Jury in that its term was extended in contravention of statutory procedure and the Grand Jury was, therefore, without jurisdiction over him. We find this argument meritless. The term of the Grand Jury which indicted him extended to the opening date of the next court term for which a Grand Jury was designated (see Bellacosa, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 11A, CPL 190.15, p. 201). Here, no subsequent Grand Jury was convened before the indicting Grand Jury had returned the indictment against defendant. The indictment was thus jurisdictionally regular.
We find no merit in defendant's allegations of error relating to the failure of the District Attorney to present complainant's signed statement to the Grand Jury which defendant argues contained contradictions. The District Attorney has wide discretion in the presentation of evidence to establish his prima facie case (People v. Filis, 87 Misc.2d 1067, 386 N.Y.S.2d 988) and the mere failure to present all the evidence against a defendant to the Grand Jury does not affect the regularity of its proceedings.
As to the adequacy of the instructions received by the Grand Jury, the term "physical injuries" is so obvious in its connotation that a failure to instruct as to its statutory meaning is not fatal. On the other hand, the failure to instruct as to "serious physical injury", although more significant, is of no consequence because defendant was acquitted of the crime as to which its meaning was relevant, i.e., unlawful imprisonment.
Defendant's attack on the procedural scheme of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bartolomeo
...investigation, the proceedings will not be invalidated (see, People v. Thompson, 108 A.D.2d 942, 485 N.Y.S.2d 835; People v. Rockwell, 97 A.D.2d 853, 469 N.Y.S.2d 252). It is significant that this same issue was raised by the defendant in his appeal from a conviction arising out of a May 19......
-
People v. Lancaster
...supra [Kaye, J., concurring] ). The People generally enjoy wide discretion in presenting their case to the Grand Jury (People v. Rockwell, 97 A.D.2d 853, 469 N.Y.S.2d 252) and are not obligated to search for evidence favorable to the defense or to present all evidence in their possession th......
-
People v. Juan R.
...Jury (C.P.L. § 190.55; see e.g., Johnson v. Town of Colonie, 102 A.D.2d 925, 477 N.Y.S.2d 513 (3rd Dept.1984); People v. Rockwell, 97 A.D.2d 853, 469 N.Y.S.2d 252 (3rd Dept.1983). See also, Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297 (1988); People v. DiFalco, 44 N.Y......
-
People v. Nezaj
...when presenting a case to the grand jury ( People v. Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97, 105, 476 N.Y.S.2d 79, 464 N.E.2d 447; People v. Rockwell, 97 A.D.2d 853, 469 N.Y.S.2d 252). They need not present all evidence favorable to the accused, nor uncover evidence which is helpful to him ( People v. Isla,......
-
The Adjudication Of Rape Since Reforms: Examining The Probability Of Conviction And Incarceration At The National And Three State Levels
...of ques-tioning a victim’s prior sexual experience is within the trial court’s discretion(People v. Rockwell, 1983, 97A.D.2d 853, 469 N.Y.S.2d 252). Other inter-pretations have followed as well 9 People v. Wesfall, 1983, 95 A.D. 2d 581,469 N.Y.S.2d 626, People v. Rockwell, 1983, 97 A.D.2d 8......