People v. Andrus

346 N.E.2d 820, 38 N.Y.2d 925, 382 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2365
New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 26, 1976·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. The order should be affirmed.

Of the three elements required to be corroborated under the rigid requirements of the rape statute (former Penal Law, § 130.15), which prevailed at the time the defendant was convicted (see People v Linzy, 31 NY2d 99, 100-101), two of them, penetration and identity, were conceded. The third, "force or lack of consent” (at p 101) was supported by a legally competent, though equivocal, admission sufficient to create a question of fact (United States v Picarelli, 148 F2d 997, 998).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Andrus, 346 N.E.2d 820, 38 N.Y.2d 925, 382 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2365 (N.Y. 1976).

346 N.E.2d 820 (People v. Andrus) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Eisenman
351 N.E.2d 429 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)