People v. Chumley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chumley

24 A.D.2d 805, 263 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3111

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 805 (People v. Chumley) 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. Chumley, 24 A.D.2d 805, 263 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

The proof of the commission of rape in the first degree adduced from the victim, a mentally retarded child of 15, was amply supported by “other evidence” (Penal Law, § 2013), including medical proof of a recent rupture of the hymen and resultant bleeding, and medical proof that the girl was incapable of consent. (See People v. Masse, 5 N Y 2d 217, 219.) The identification of defendant by the victim was also strongly supported by other evidence. The corroborative factors included defendant’s contradictory statements; his employment, upon stopping his car to accost young girls on occasions before and after the crime, of the same subterfuges used to entice the complaining witness into his automobile (see People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 293, 314); and the identification of the automobile itself. Appellant’s additional assignments of error have been examined and found without merit. Judgment affirmed. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

The proof of the commission of rape in the first degree adduced from the victim, a mentally retarded child of 15, was amply supported by “other evidence” (Penal Law, § 2013), including medical proof of a recent rupture of the hymen and resultant bleeding, and medical proof that the girl was incapable of consent. (See People v. Masse, 5 N Y 2d 217, 219.) The identification of defendant by the victim was also strongly supported by other evidence. The corroborative factors included defendant’s contradictory statements; his employment, upon stopping his car to accost young girls on occasions before and after the crime, of the same subterfuges used to entice the complaining witness into his automobile (see People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 293, 314); and the identification of the automobile itself. Appellant’s additional assignments of error have been examined and found without merit. Judgment affirmed. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 805, 263 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chumley-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack