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. 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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1987

People v. Figueroa

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Orange County, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The defendant argued that the evidence was legally insufficient due to inconsistencies in the nine-year-old victim's testimony and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court found the victim's sworn testimony provided a rational basis for the jury's conclusion, and the evidence was legally sufficient. The court addressed the victim's delayed reporting, minor inconsistencies in her testimony, and conflicting medical expert opinions, ultimately affirming the judgment.

Rape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceChild Victim TestimonyCredibility of WitnessCorroboration of TestimonyDelayed ReportingExpert Medical TestimonySexual Abuse Evidence
References
28
Case No. E1999-02206-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2001

State s. Anthony Lynn Wyrick

Anthony Lynn Wyrick was convicted of two counts of aggravated rape and sentenced to life without parole. He appealed on several grounds, including the trial court's exclusion of evidence of a prior false accusation of rape by the victim. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reversed the judgments of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The court found that the trial court committed harmful error by not allowing the defendant to cross-examine the victim on the prior false accusation of rape, deeming it necessary for a fair determination of the case given the reliance on the victim's testimony.

Aggravated RapeCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceIn-Court IdentificationPrior False AccusationImpeachmentCross-ExaminationDue ProcessConstitutional LawRecidivist Statute
References
109
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bridges

The defendant faced charges of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse, rape in the third degree, and unlawful imprisonment. During the trial, inconsistencies arose in the victim's descriptions of the alleged attack, leading the defense to subpoena notes from a rape crisis volunteer who had spoken with the victim. Planned Parenthood, the organization employing the volunteer, opposed the subpoena, asserting protection under CPLR 4508, the "social worker privilege." However, the court determined that CPLR 4508 did not apply because the volunteer was neither a certified social worker nor acting under one's supervision. Consequently, Planned Parenthood's motion to quash the subpoena was denied, and the court ordered the disclosure of the volunteer's notes to the defense.

rape in the first degreesexual abuse in the first degreerape in the third degreeunlawful imprisonment in the first degreevictim testimonyinconsistent statementsrape crisis servicePlanned ParenthoodsubpoenaCPLR 4508
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Pena

The defendant, accused of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse, moved for discovery of records from the Rape Crisis Center where the complainant received counseling. The prosecution opposed the motion, citing confidentiality and lack of relevance. The court addressed the novel issue of privilege for rape crisis communications in New York, noting the absence of specific statutory authority unlike other jurisdictions. Balancing the defendant's constitutional rights of confrontation and access to exculpatory evidence against the complainant's right to confidential counseling, the court denied the motion. The decision emphasized the defendant's failure to provide a factual predicate for discovery, characterizing the request as a 'fishing expedition' and underscoring the social value of protecting victim-counselor confidentiality.

Discovery MotionRape Crisis CounselingConfidentialityPrivileged Communications6th AmendmentRight of ConfrontationExculpatory EvidenceCriminal ProcedureEvidentiary RulesVictim's Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Yates

The People moved for a Frye hearing to determine the scientific acceptance of expert testimony on male rape trauma syndrome, which the defendant sought to introduce. The defendant, charged with grand larceny, claimed he was sexually assaulted and that the syndrome explained his failure to report the incident. The court reviewed existing New York case law on rape trauma syndrome for female and child victims, and scientific literature on male sexual assault. It found that male victims exhibit similar post-traumatic stress symptoms to female victims, concluding that male rape trauma syndrome is generally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the court denied the People's motion, ruling that a Frye hearing was not necessary.

Male Rape Trauma SyndromeFrye HearingExpert Testimony AdmissibilitySexual AssaultPosttraumatic Stress DisorderScientific AcceptanceGender Neutral LawEvidence LawCriminal ProcedureSodomy
References
26
Case No. E1999-00438-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2002

State of Tennessee v. Thomas Dee Huskey

Thomas Dee Huskey appealed convictions for aggravated rape, rape, aggravated robbery, robbery, and kidnapping across four victims. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed convictions in part and reversed in part. The court reversed judgments for three aggravated rape convictions and one especially aggravated kidnapping conviction related to victim D.C. due to improper consolidation, finding the offenses against D.C. were committed differently than the others. The remaining convictions for victims A.D. and G.T. were affirmed, resulting in an adjusted effective sentence of forty-four years in the Department of Correction. The court addressed numerous other issues including speedy trial, unlawful arrest, discovery, and prosecutorial misconduct, generally finding no reversible error.

Criminal LawAppellate ReviewConviction ReversalJudicial DiscretionPretrial PublicityJury SelectionWitness CredibilityEvidentiary RulesSentencing EnhancementConstitutional Rights
References
152
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jesse v. Savings Products

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Chancellor's award of worker's compensation benefits to an employee who developed a mental disability after being raped at her workplace. The defendants argued the injury did not arise out of employment and that the permanence of the disability was not competently proven. The Court applied the "street risk" doctrine, concluding the rape was a hazard of employment due to the plaintiff's visible identification with her work and exposure to the public. While affirming compensability, the Court remanded the case for a physician's opinion on the duration of the plaintiff's disability, as current expert psychological opinions were deemed insufficient for proving permanence.

Post-traumatic Stress SyndromeWorkplace RapeMental Disability BenefitsWorker's Compensation AppealStreet Risk DoctrineCompensability of AssaultsEmployment-Related InjuryMedical Opinion SufficiencyPermanence of DisabilityRemand for Expert Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1990

People v. Singh

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, convicting him of rape in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The appellate court found several erroneous evidentiary rulings by the trial court. Specifically, the court erred in admitting expert testimony on post-traumatic stress syndrome to prove the occurrence of rape, allowing testimony concerning prior uncharged sexual abuse outside the indictment period, admitting a prejudicial letter from the defendant, and permitting extensive cross-examination on pornographic videotapes. Due to the cumulative and prejudicial impact of these errors, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.

Child sexual abusePost-traumatic stress syndromeExpert testimonyEvidentiary errorsPrior uncharged crimesPornographic videotapeHarmless errorNew trialRape in the third degreeEndangering welfare of a child
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 109 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