You are here: / / THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY;...
,

THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY; ALTHOUGH BURGLARY SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE LESSER OFFENSE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THAT POSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, dismissing the burglary second count, determined the People’s request to instruct the jury on burglary second as a lesser included offense of burglary second as a sexually motivated offense should not have been granted. Although burglary second is a lesser included offense of burglary second as a sexually motivated offense, the People’s case focused only on the sexual motivation. Defendant therefore did not have notice the jury would consider burglary second:

… [T]he court improperly charged the lesser-included offense because the People, through the way they presented their case, deprived defendant of notice of the possibility that the jury would be asked to consider a lesser-included. In People v Barnes (50 NY2d 375 [1980]), the Court of Appeals observed that, where the People in a burglary case limit to a particular crime the act that the defendant intended to commit while unlawfully in a building, “the court is obliged to hold the prosecution to this narrower theory alone” … . * * *

In opposing defendant’s pretrial motion to sever certain charges in the indictment from the others, the People focused exclusively on defendant’s sexual harassment of the complainant, and on his grabbing the arm and pulling the shirt of another woman he encountered in the dorm. In making an application for the admission of certain Molineux evidence, the prosecutor focused only on the theory that defendant entered the dorm to satisfy his own sexual urges. And, in his opening statement, the prosecutor stated that defendant “knowingly and unlawfully entered the private area of a dorm to do exactly what he had been doing minutes prior — to grab, to grope and to harass the young women who lived there.” Further, the prosecutor downplayed the behavior defendant displayed towards some men he saw in the lobby of the dorm, stating that “the evidence will show that he was substantially motivated by his desire to abuse women when he passed that turnstile and unlawfully entered the private area of the dorm.” People v Seignious, 2022 NY Slip Op 00948, First Dept 2-10-22

 

You might also like
PETITIONER, WHO WAS GRANTED A LICENSE TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY UNDER RPAPL 881 TO MAKE REPAIRS ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (OTHERWISE NOT ACCESSIBLE), WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RESPONDENT A LICENSE FEE.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE 1994 ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION ON “ACTUAL INNOCENCE” GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED; DEFENDANT SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A HEARING, I.E., EVIDENCE A DECEASED COOPERATING WITNESS HAD CONFESSED TO BEING THE SHOOTER (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT).
CPLR 7515, ENACTED IN 2018, DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PROHIBIT MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS SELLING TICKETS TO A SPORTING EVENT OUTSIDE THE ARENA, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW THE TICKETS WERE FORGED WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT WHEN HE SAW THE POLICE WAS EQUIVOCAL (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE “AGE 29 LAW” MEDICAL-INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PLAINTIFF’S CHILD WAS AVAILABLE THROUGH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S PLAN UNTIL THE CHILD TURNED 29; THEREFORE THE STIPULATED ORDER IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COVER THE CHILD UNDER THE PLAN FOR AS LONG AS THE LAW ALLOWS REQUIRED COVERAGE TO AGE 29; THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PARTIES CONTEMPLATED A CUT-OFF AT AGE 26 PURSUANT TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXECUTIVE-COMPENSATION-CAP AND CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST RULES FOR AGENCIES PROVIDING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN DO NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE.
WHERE FRAUD IS THE BASIS OF A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS SIX YEARS (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION AFFIRMED; DURING A POLICE CHASE, DEFENDANT... PLAINTIFF’S “INVOLUNTARY RESIGNATION,” HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT...