People v. Struts
| Decision Date | 01 March 2001 |
| Citation | 721 N.Y.S.2d 425,281 A.D.2d 655 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>YEVGENIY STRUTS, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
281 A.D.2d 655
721 N.Y.S.2d 425
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,
v.
YEVGENIY STRUTS, Respondent.
Decided March 1, 2001.
[281 A.D.2d 656]
Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.
Cardona, P. J.
Defendant was indicted on two counts of rape in the third degree, in violation of Penal Law § 130.25 (2), based on two separate instances of alleged sexual intercourse with a female victim immediately before and after her sixteenth birthday. As pertinent to this case, the crime of rape in the third degree is perpetrated when a defendant, "[b]eing twenty-one years old or more * * * engages in sexual intercourse with another person to whom the actor is not married [and who is] less than seventeen years old" (Penal Law § 130.25 [2] [emphasis supplied]). Significantly, neither count of the indictment alleges that defendant and the victim were not married to each other as required by the statute. Defendant moved to dismiss both counts of the indictment based on, inter alia, the People's failure to allege that the victim was not defendant's wife. County Court granted that motion and the People appeal.
We affirm. An indictment must contain a factual allegation of every element of a crime charged (CPL 200.50 [7]) and we have held that "`[i]t is bright line law that if the offense charged has an exception contained within the statute, the indictment must contain an allegation that defendant's conduct does not come within the reach of the exception'" (People v Hogabone, 278 AD2d 525, 525-526, quoting People v Bingham, 263 AD2d 611, lv denied 93 NY2d 1014; see, People v Kohut, 30 NY2d 183, 187). Since both counts of the indictment herein fail to state that defendant's alleged conduct does not come within the exception for married couples, County Court properly dismissed the indictment as facially invalid. Thus, even if it could be successfully argued that evidence of marital status was presented to the Grand Jury, that proof would not cure this facially defective indictment.
Furthermore, we do not agree with the People's contention that this critical omission from the indictment "was merely a typographical error rather than a substantive defect." The failure to allege such an element is a fatal defect of the charging document (see, People v Kohut, supra; People v Hogabone, supra). We are similarly unpersuaded by the People's argument that they should have been allowed to amend the indictment to include the fact that "the actor was not married...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Boula
... ... In short, notwithstanding the fact that the [g]rand [j]ury minutes support a charge, the indictment cannot be amended to cure one of the defects specified in [CPL 200.70(2) ] (Peter Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 11A, CPL 200.70 at 18; see e.g. People v. Struts, 281 A.D.2d 655, 656, 721 N.Y.S.2d 425 [2001] ). Here, the amendment effectively cured the failure to charge the crime of conspiracy in the second degree and, therefore, was prohibited by CPL 200.70(2), regardless of any consistency with the People's theory before the grand jury ( see People v ... ...
-
People v. Shaver
... ... labor dispute exception set forth in Penal Law § 215.50, we are constrained to conclude that it must be dismissed as jurisdictionally defective under recent precedent of this Court (see, People v Kirkham, 273 A.D.2d 509; see also, People v Peraza, ___ A.D.2d ___, 733 N.Y.S.2d 510; People v Struts, 281 A.D.2d 655; People v Hogabone, supra; People v Bingham, 263 A.D.2d 611, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1014; but see, People v D'Angelo, 284 A.D.2d 146) ... Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur ... ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and superior court information ... ...
- People v. Gause