People v. West

• Decision Date: 14 January 1999
• Citation: 684 N.Y.S.2d 24
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 245 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry W. WEST, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 24

684 N.Y.S.2d 24

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 245

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry W. WEST, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Jan. 14, 1999.

Paul J. Connolly, Albany, for appellant.

James Sacket, District Attorney, Schoharie, for respondent.

Before: MIKOLL, J.P., MERCURE, CREW III, YESAWICH Jr. and PETERS, JJ.

MERCURE, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schoharie County (Bartlett III, J.), rendered November 12, 1997, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

On April 22, 1996, defendant left a social gathering at his sister's home; he was accompanied only by his girlfriend's seven-year-old daughter. When the two arrived home approximately one hour later, the child was crying, her vagina was red, she had mud on the front of her legs, her buttocks and her underwear, and a scratch under her arm. The police were contacted and the child was taken to the hospital, where she was examined by a physician and a Child Protective Services supervisor. Defendant was taken into custody and made oral and written admissions wherein he acknowledged touching the child's vagina, rubbing his penis against "the outside of her vagina" and then ejaculating on her stomach. Defendant was indicted for rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child. A jury convicted defendant of all four counts and he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender to concurrent prison terms aggregating 25 years to life.

Defendant appeals, primarily contending that the jury's verdict finding him guilty of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree was unsupported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the credible evidence. We disagree. Even under the heightened standard applicable in circumstantial evidence cases (see, People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 441, 497 N.Y.S.2d 637, 488 N.E.2d 458), we conclude that, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), there is a "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury * * * and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime[s] [of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree]" (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [citation omitted]; see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, 476 N.Y.S.2d 825, 465 N.E.2d 364, cert. denied 469 U.S. 932, 105 S.Ct. 327, 83 L.Ed.2d 264). In addition, viewing the evidence in a neutral light and " 'weigh[ing] the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony' " (People v. Bleakley, supra, at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672, quoting People ex rel. MacCracken v. Miller, 291 N.Y. 55, 62, 50 N.E.2d 542; see, People v. Moore, 170...