People v. Barcomb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barcomb

256 A.D.2d 926, 683 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13961

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 24, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 926 (People v. Barcomb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Barcomb, 256 A.D.2d 926, 683 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Mercure, J.

Appeal [927]*927from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Pulver, Jr., J.), rendered January 14, 1997, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of sodomy in the third degree and rape in the third degree.

Convicted of sodomy in the third degree and rape in the third degree as the result of his sexual contact with an 11-year-old female, defendant now appeals, contending primarily that the victim’s trial testimony was insufficient to establish the elements of sexual intercourse and deviate sexual intercourse (see, Penal Law § 130.00 [1], [2]). Specifically, defendant claims that the victim failed to provide sufficient detail about the specific sexual conduct she engaged in with defendant to establish that sexual intercourse and oral sex occurred. We are unpersuaded.

Defendant’s written confession, which described in graphic detail his sexual relations with the victim, was of itself sufficient to establish his culpability (see, People v Safian, 46 NY2d 181, 186, cert denied sub nom. Miner v New York, 443 US 912; People v Morgan, 246 AD2d 686, 686-687, lv denied 91 NY2d 975). In this instance, the victim’s testimony was necessary only to corroborate defendant’s confession (see, CPL 60.50; People v Booden, 69 NY2d 185, 187). Notably, CPL 60.50 does not require corroboration of a defendant’s confession in every detail, but only some proof “that the offense charged has in fact been committed by someone” (People v Booden, supra, at 187). The victim’s testimony that she knew what sexual intercourse" and “oral intercourse” were and that she had performed these acts with defendant on several occasions was ample for that purpose (see, id., at 187; People v Safian, supra, at 186; People v Murray, 40 NY2d 327, 332, cert denied 430 US 948).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., White, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Mercure, J.

Appeal [927]*927from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Pulver, Jr., J.), rendered January 14, 1997, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of sodomy in the third degree and rape in the third degree.

Convicted of sodomy in the third degree and rape in the third degree as the result of his sexual contact with an 11-year-old female, defendant now appeals, contending primarily that the victim’s trial testimony was insufficient to establish the elements of sexual intercourse and deviate sexual intercourse (see, Penal Law § 130.00 [1], [2]). Specifically, defendant claims that the victim failed to provide sufficient detail about the specific sexual conduct she engaged in with defendant to establish that sexual intercourse and oral sex occurred. We are unpersuaded.

Defendant’s written confession, which described in graphic detail his sexual relations with the victim, was of itself sufficient to establish his culpability (see, People v Safian, 46 NY2d 181, 186, cert denied sub nom. Miner v New York, 443 US 912; People v Morgan, 246 AD2d 686, 686-687, lv denied 91 NY2d 975). In this instance, the victim’s testimony was necessary only to corroborate defendant’s confession (see, CPL 60.50; People v Booden, 69 NY2d 185, 187). Notably, CPL 60.50 does not require corroboration of a defendant’s confession in every detail, but only some proof “that the offense charged has in fact been committed by someone” (People v Booden, supra, at 187). The victim’s testimony that she knew what sexual intercourse" and “oral intercourse” were and that she had performed these acts with defendant on several occasions was ample for that purpose (see, id., at 187; People v Safian, supra, at 186; People v Murray, 40 NY2d 327, 332, cert denied 430 US 948).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., White, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 926, 683 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barcomb-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack