CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Campbell

The defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted assault in the second degree after a nonjury trial, following an indictment for attempted rape and other charges. The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The defendant appealed, arguing that attempted assault under Penal Law § 120.05 (3) is a legal impossibility because the statute imposes criminal responsibility for an unintended injury, and one cannot attempt to bring about an unintended result. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that an attempt requires an intent to commit a specific crime and bring about the proscribed result. Since Penal Law § 120.05 (3) does not require intent to cause injury, but rather intent to prevent an officer from performing a lawful duty while causing injury, there can be no attempt to commit a crime whose core result (injury) is not intended. Consequently, the crime of attempted assault in the second degree under this subdivision was deemed a legal impossibility, and the Appellate Division's order was reversed, and the assault counts dismissed.

Criminal LawAttempted AssaultPenal LawSecond Degree AssaultIntent to InjureLegal ImpossibilityStrict LiabilityAppellate ReviewCriminal CulpabilityLawful Duty
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibbons v. State

Marion Gibbons, an attorney, appealed his conviction for attempted theft, valued over $10,000, arguing insufficient evidence. The indictment alleged Gibbons attempted to unlawfully appropriate money from James L. Ballard by negotiating a settlement for an invalid worker's compensation claim for Donnie J. Dukes after Dukes' death. Despite engaging in unethical conduct, such as continuing negotiations and withholding information about Dukes' death from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and allegedly attempting to bribe an adjuster, the court found these actions did not amount to more than mere preparation. Crucially, the Compromise Settlement Agreement was never executed or submitted for approval by the Industrial Accident Board, which was a prerequisite for collecting funds. Therefore, the judgment of conviction was set aside, and Gibbons was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

Attempted TheftCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceWorker's Compensation ClaimLegal EthicsMere Preparation DoctrineIndustrial Accident BoardCompromise Settlement AgreementFraudAttorney Misconduct
References
13
Case No. M2001-02907-CCA-R3-PC
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2003

David Lynn McClure v. State of Tennessee

David Lynn McClure was convicted of aggravated sexual battery, rape of a child, and attempted rape of a child, receiving a 30-year sentence. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. McClure filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, which was denied by the post-conviction court. He appealed this denial, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding McClure failed to demonstrate that the evidence preponderated against the post-conviction court's findings.

Post-Conviction ReliefIneffective Assistance of CounselAggravated Sexual BatteryRape of a ChildAttempted Rape of a ChildCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceTrial StrategyCross-ExaminationExpert Witness Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2013

People v. Stanley

Defendant appealed his conviction for attempted rape and rape, arguing the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based on his alleged violation of sentence conditions. The court's sentence promise was conditioned upon defendant truthfully answering questions from the probation department for his presentence report. Defendant provided inconsistent statements to the probation officer and a social worker regarding his sexual contact with the younger victim, which led to the enhanced sentence. The appellate court concluded the record was unclear whether defendant actually lied to the probation officer about having sexual intercourse with the younger victim. Consequently, the case was remitted to the County Court for a hearing to determine if there was sufficient evidence of untruthful answers.

Enhanced SentencePlea AgreementSentence ConditionsProbation ReportPresentence InvestigationTruthfulnessSexual OffensesRapeAttempted RapeGenesee County Court
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Ortiz

Defendant was indicted for first-degree rape of a nine-year-old girl in August 1985 and subsequently pleaded guilty to attempted rape in the first degree on January 23, 1986. On appeal, defendant argued that exculpatory evidence was withheld in violation of Brady v Maryland, the Sandoval ruling was improper, and prosecution was barred by double jeopardy or collateral estoppel. The court found that while the Brady claim survived the guilty plea, it lacked merit after an in camera examination revealed the Department of Social Services closed a child abuse report file due to lack of jurisdiction, not exoneration. The Sandoval and double jeopardy claims were deemed waived by the guilty plea or without merit. The judgment was affirmed.

Sandoval RulingBrady ViolationDouble JeopardyCollateral EstoppelChild AbuseAttempted RapeGuilty PleaIn Camera HearingSocial Services LawCriminal Procedure Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haddock v. City of New York

This appeal addresses the liability of the City of New York for the rape of a nine-year-old child by a Parks Department employee, James Johnson, who had a violent criminal history. Johnson was hired under the Work Relief Employment Program (WREP), which aimed to employ ex-convicts. The City failed to comply with its own personnel procedures to review Johnson's criminal record, which included past convictions for attempted rape and robbery. The court found that the City's failure to exercise informed discretion regarding Johnson's retention, despite knowing his criminal background, constituted negligent retention. The judgment of the Appellate Division, reinstating a reduced verdict of $2.5 million against the City, was affirmed, emphasizing that municipal immunity does not apply when the municipality violates its own internal rules and exercises no judgment or discretion.

Negligent RetentionMunicipal LiabilityGovernmental ImmunityDiscretionary vs. Ministerial ActsEx-Convict EmploymentPublic SafetyCriminal Background CheckForeseeability of HarmChild AbuseWork Relief Employment Program
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bigelow

The complainant was attacked in the Red Hook Houses project in Brooklyn in April 1982. She described her assailant, but child witnesses later identified the defendant from a fifth-floor window two days after the crime. The defendant presented an alibi, corroborated by a co-worker and his wife, stating he was in Harlem at the time of the assault. He also testified he had a moustache for years, contradicting the complainant's description of a 'clean shaven' attacker. The jury acquitted him of rape but convicted him of attempted rape, sexual abuse, and assault. This dissenting opinion argues that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to significant discrepancies in identification and the suggestive circumstances of the identification, coupled with a strong alibi defense. It also contends that the trial court's jury charge on the alibi was inadequate, potentially shifting the burden of proof, and therefore votes to reverse the judgment and dismiss the indictment, or at minimum, order a new trial.

Eyewitness IdentificationAlibi DefenseWeight of EvidenceSufficiency of EvidenceReasonable DoubtJury InstructionsCriminal AppealAttempted RapeSexual AbuseAssault
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Linzy

The case involves an appeal against a conviction for rape in the first degree, focusing on the sufficiency of corroborating evidence and the adequacy of jury instructions. The appellant contended that the complainant's testimony lacked sufficient corroboration of identity and that the trial court erred in its charge regarding exhibits as corroboration. The majority affirmed the conviction, finding ample corroboration from the complainant's observations and identification, supported by physical evidence. However, the dissenting judges argued that the corroborative evidence was weak and the confusing jury charge on corroboration led to a speculative verdict, necessitating a new trial.

Rape (First Degree)CorroborationJury InstructionsCriminal AppealWitness IdentificationPhysical EvidencePenal LawDue ProcessAppellate ReviewTrial Court Error
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2009

People v. Andrus

Defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child. He argued his Miranda rights were violated, but the court found a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. The court also rejected his claim that a social worker acted as a law enforcement agent without issuing Miranda warnings, noting the interview's timing and continuous custody. Furthermore, police deception regarding a polygraph did not coerce his statement or deny due process. His challenge to his Alford plea was unpreserved, and the sentence was deemed appropriate.

Miranda rightsWaiver of rightsRight to counselPolice interrogationSocial worker interviewLaw enforcement agencyVoluntariness of confessionPolice deceptionPolygraph examinationDue process
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Dean

The defendant appealed his conviction for rape in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a mentally incompetent person, stemming from sexual intercourse with a mentally impaired victim. Both the defendant and the victim had significant mental impairments, with the defendant functioning at a slightly higher level. The primary issue on appeal was whether the prosecution met its high burden of proving the victim's lack of mental capacity to consent. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including the long-standing relationship between the defendant and victim, their families' awareness, and evidence of mutual affection. Ultimately, the court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim lacked the mental capacity to consent under the specific circumstances. Consequently, the judgment of conviction was reversed, and the indictment dismissed.

Criminal LawSexual OffensesRape Second DegreeEndangering WelfareMentally Incompetent PersonCapacity to ConsentAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceParens PatriaeSexual Assault
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,352 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational