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. 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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 1994

People v. Strong

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Albany County, convicting them of rape in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and robbery in the second degree. The conviction stemmed from an incident where the defendant allegedly tied up George Giametta and a woman, stole their belongings, and raped the woman. On appeal, the defendant contended that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to initial conflicting identification statements from the victims, who first identified Raymond Allen but later identified the defendant in a lineup. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the jury had ample opportunity to assess witness credibility and that its determination was not against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction was affirmed.

Criminal LawRape First DegreeRobbery First DegreeRobbery Second DegreeJury VerdictAppealIdentification TestimonyWitness CredibilityWeight of EvidenceLineup Identification
References
4
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
Jun 08, 1990

People v. Parkes

The defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree after a jury trial, and of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree upon guilty pleas. The case involved the rape of an 11-year-old and her sodomy by a friend, with the defendant holding her down. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding overwhelming proof of guilt, corroborated by a postal worker's testimony and the victim's immediate complaints. The court noted that while some later statements were improperly admitted, the error was unpreserved due to lack of objection. Additionally, the admission of evidence regarding uncharged sodomies as part of the narrative and the refusal of a missing witness charge were found to be without error.

Rape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeGrand Larceny Third DegreeCriminal Possession Controlled SubstanceJury TrialGuilty PleaCorroborating TestimonyVictim StatementsUncharged CrimesMissing Witness Charge
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 77 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