People v. Goulbourne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goulbourne

199 A.D.2d 533, 606 N.Y.S.2d 50

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 533 (People v. Goulbourne) 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. Goulbourne, 199 A.D.2d 533, 606 N.Y.S.2d 50 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered October 16, 1992, convicting him of rape in the first degree (12 counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts), attempted sodomy in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (24 counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that the time frames of the crimes charged in the indictment, and as stated more specifically in the People’s bill of particulars and amended bill of particulars, failed to conform to the proof at trial. In their testimony, the two victims, who were eight and ten years old, respectively, at the time of the crimes, repeatedly referred to time frames, in terms of events that occurred in their lives, to describe when each of the crimes occurred. Their mother then testified to supply dates for the occurrences to which the children referred.

We also find that the time frames for each of the offenses alleged, the longest of which was two and one-half months, were not excessive (see, People v Watt, 81 NY2d 772, on remand 192 AD2d 65; People v Morris, 61 NY2d 290).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered October 16, 1992, convicting him of rape in the first degree (12 counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts), attempted sodomy in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (24 counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that the time frames of the crimes charged in the indictment, and as stated more specifically in the People’s bill of particulars and amended bill of particulars, failed to conform to the proof at trial. In their testimony, the two victims, who were eight and ten years old, respectively, at the time of the crimes, repeatedly referred to time frames, in terms of events that occurred in their lives, to describe when each of the crimes occurred. Their mother then testified to supply dates for the occurrences to which the children referred.

We also find that the time frames for each of the offenses alleged, the longest of which was two and one-half months, were not excessive (see, People v Watt, 81 NY2d 772, on remand 192 AD2d 65; People v Morris, 61 NY2d 290).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 533, 606 N.Y.S.2d 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goulbourne-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack