People v. Foote

251 A.D.2d 346, 674 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6201
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 1, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 346 (People v. Foote) 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. Foote, 251 A.D.2d 346, 674 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered March 7, 1995, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the third count of the indictment charging rape in the first degree is dismissed, with leave to the People, should they be so advised, to resubmit any appropriate charges arising out of the conduct underlying that count to another Grand Jury.

The indictment in this case charged the defendant with, among other things, three counts of rape in the first degree. At the trial, however, the complainant described four specific times that the defendant allegedly forced her to have sexual intercourse and testified that, in total, the defendant had placed his penis in her vagina approximately eight times. During the jury charge, the court did not link the testimony of vaginal intercourse sequentially or otherwise to the different counts of the indictment. Therefore, as correctly asserted by the defendant at trial and on appeal, the counts of the indictment were duplicitous (see, People v Jiminez, 239 AD2d 360; People v Jelinek, 224 AD2d 717, cert denied 519 US 900; People v Davila, 198 AD2d 371). The jury ultimately returned a verdict convicting the defendant of only the third count of rape, and it is not possible on appellate review to determine what conduct of the defendant the jury found supported that count.

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the court erred in recharging the jury and ordering further deliberations. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Gerardi
2018 NY Slip Op 7325 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Singh
128 A.D.3d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
DUKES, ROBERT, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
People v. Dukes
122 A.D.3d 1370 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Jean
117 A.D.3d 875 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Black
65 A.D.3d 811 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Dathan
27 A.D.3d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Dalton
27 A.D.3d 779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.D.2d 346, 674 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-foote-nyappdiv-1998.