People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 01 March 1999 |
| Citation | 259 A.D.2d 509,687 N.Y.S.2d 167 |
| Parties | 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1893 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Marvin WILLIAMS, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Wayne P. Jordan, New Hyde Park, N.Y., for appellant.
Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Bruce E. Whitney and Andrea M. DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN and LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered September 13, 1996, convicting him of rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Penetration of the vulva or labia constitutes sexual intercourse even though the victim's hymen remains intact and there is no penetration into the vaginal canal (see, People v. Groff, 71 N.Y.2d 101, 524 N.Y.S.2d 13, 518 N.E.2d 908; People v. Berardicurti, 167 A.D.2d 840, 561 N.Y.S.2d 949). Here, the trial testimony clearly established that, at the very least, the defendant's penis penetrated the complainant's vulva. Additionally, the complainant's testimony established the element of forcible compulsion (see, People v. Hodges, 204 A.D.2d 739, 612 N.Y.S.2d 420; People v. Solorzano, 163 A.D.2d 434, 559 N.Y.S.2d 20). The fact that the complainant did not suffer any physical injuries as a result of the sexual attack does not render the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Hodges, supra; People v. Gonzalez, 136 A.D.2d 735, 524 N.Y.S.2d 73).
Moreover, the inconsistencies between the complainant's out-of-court statements and her trial testimony merely created a credibility issue which the jury resolved in the People's favor (see, People v. Collins, 188 A.D.2d 608, 609, 590 N.Y.S.2d 914).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Parris
...intercourse with the complainant, which "occurs upon any penetration, however slight" ( Penal Law § 130.00 [1] ; see People v. Williams, 259 A.D.2d 509, 687 N.Y.S.2d 167 ). The felony complaint indicated that the complainant stated that the defendant rubbed his penis against her vagina and ......
-
People v. Soto
...as a result of a sexual attack does not necessarily render the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Williams, 259 A.D.2d 509, 687 N.Y.S.2d 167 ). Moreover, the complainant's testimony was corroborated by the account of the school counselor to whom she disclosed the rape......
-
People v. Barnes
...with the testimony of the People's medical expert. Although this was not an incorrect statement of the law (see People v. Williams, 259 A.D.2d 509, 687 N.Y.S.2d 167 ; People v. Berardicurti, 167 A.D.2d 840, 841, 561 N.Y.S.2d 949 ), a core component of the defense theory was that there was n......
-
People v. Ross
...v. Dunn, 204 A.D.2d 919, 920, 612 N.Y.S.2d 266;cf. People v. Shepard, 259 A.D.2d 775, 776, 687 N.Y.S.2d 196;People v. Williams, 259 A.D.2d 509, 687 N.Y.S.2d 167). However, in light of the complainant's testimony that the defendant inserted his fingers into her vagina on more than one occasi......