People v. Parr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Parr

155 A.D.2d 945, 548 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14809

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 945 (People v. Parr) 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. Parr, 155 A.D.2d 945, 548 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s claim that the proof of endangering the welfare of a child was legally insufficient. A woman testified that while defendant was forcibly sodomizing her, her five-year-old son came crying into the room. Despite the woman’s pleas that defendant not continue such conduct in the presence of the child, defendant put his arm around the child and persisted. Although both the woman and defendant testified that defendant attempted to cover the child’s eyes, the child testified that he saw the act. On this proof, the jury could properly find that defendant’s conduct was knowing, within the meaning of Penal Law § 260.10 (1).

We have examined the other claims made by defendant and find that they lack merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Dadd, J. — rape, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s claim that the proof of endangering the welfare of a child was legally insufficient. A woman testified that while defendant was forcibly sodomizing her, her five-year-old son came crying into the room. Despite the woman’s pleas that defendant not continue such conduct in the presence of the child, defendant put his arm around the child and persisted. Although both the woman and defendant testified that defendant attempted to cover the child’s eyes, the child testified that he saw the act. On this proof, the jury could properly find that defendant’s conduct was knowing, within the meaning of Penal Law § 260.10 (1).

We have examined the other claims made by defendant and find that they lack merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Dadd, J. — rape, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 945, 548 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parr-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack