rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
In July 2002 in the Town of Livingston, Columbia County, a
witness observed defendant slowly drive his car across the center
line of a road and strike a female bicyclist stopped alongside
the road. The witness further observed defendant pull the
struggling victim toward his vehicle. As the witness and other
bystanders moved to intervene, the victim wriggled free and,
after exchanging words with those seeking to intervene, defendant
fled the scene. Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged
with attempted kidnapping in the second degree.
At his trial, defendant testified that the aforementioned
events were the result of mistaken identity. In sum, defendant
claimed that, after meeting an individual named "Judith" on the
Internet, the two arranged to have defendant simulate an
"abduction" of Judith and thereafter engage in sexual role-playing
activities together. According to defendant, he and
Judith planned this mock abduction for a number of months and the
preparation included defendant scouting the location of the event
in Livingston, observing Judith while she rode her bicycle in the
neighboring countryside, and Judith executing a "consent form" in
which she agreed to her own capture. Numerous electronic
communications between defendant and Judith were introduced into
evidence at trial in support of defendant's case. Finally,
although the mock abduction was originally scheduled for March
2002, defendant claimed at trial that he and Judith had
rescheduled for July 2002 and that, on the day he encountered the
victim, he believed that she was Judith due to her physical
appearance and the model of her bicycle.
Defendant was subsequently convicted as charged and
sentenced, as a second felony offender, to 15 years in prison.
Defendant now appeals, primarily challenging the manner in which
the grand jury presentment was conducted and County Court's
instruction to the trial jury.
We first address defendant's claims concerning County
Court's failure to dismiss the indictment due to defects in the
grand jury presentment (see CPL 210.20 [1] [c]; 210.35 [4]). In
that regard, defendant avers that his right "to give any relevant
and competent evidence" (CPL 190.50 [5] ) was impermissibly
abridged because, during his testimony before the grand jury, he
was precluded from introducing hard copies of the e-mail
correspondence between Judith and himself. Relatedly, defendant
also avers that his statutory right to testify before the grand
jury was impaired due to the fact that he was precluded access to
his computer hard drive – and the instant messages between him
and Judith contained therein – in advance of his testimony. We find these claims unpersuasive.
(Apparently this guy was just re-tried and released--rosco)
witness observed defendant slowly drive his car across the center
line of a road and strike a female bicyclist stopped alongside
the road. The witness further observed defendant pull the
struggling victim toward his vehicle. As the witness and other
bystanders moved to intervene, the victim wriggled free and,
after exchanging words with those seeking to intervene, defendant
fled the scene. Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged
with attempted kidnapping in the second degree.
At his trial, defendant testified that the aforementioned
events were the result of mistaken identity. In sum, defendant
claimed that, after meeting an individual named "Judith" on the
Internet, the two arranged to have defendant simulate an
"abduction" of Judith and thereafter engage in sexual role-playing
activities together. According to defendant, he and
Judith planned this mock abduction for a number of months and the
preparation included defendant scouting the location of the event
in Livingston, observing Judith while she rode her bicycle in the
neighboring countryside, and Judith executing a "consent form" in
which she agreed to her own capture. Numerous electronic
communications between defendant and Judith were introduced into
evidence at trial in support of defendant's case. Finally,
although the mock abduction was originally scheduled for March
2002, defendant claimed at trial that he and Judith had
rescheduled for July 2002 and that, on the day he encountered the
victim, he believed that she was Judith due to her physical
appearance and the model of her bicycle.
Defendant was subsequently convicted as charged and
sentenced, as a second felony offender, to 15 years in prison.
Defendant now appeals, primarily challenging the manner in which
the grand jury presentment was conducted and County Court's
instruction to the trial jury.
We first address defendant's claims concerning County
Court's failure to dismiss the indictment due to defects in the
grand jury presentment (see CPL 210.20 [1] [c]; 210.35 [4]). In
that regard, defendant avers that his right "to give any relevant
and competent evidence" (CPL 190.50 [5] ) was impermissibly
abridged because, during his testimony before the grand jury, he
was precluded from introducing hard copies of the e-mail
correspondence between Judith and himself. Relatedly, defendant
also avers that his statutory right to testify before the grand
jury was impaired due to the fact that he was precluded access to
his computer hard drive – and the instant messages between him
and Judith contained therein – in advance of his testimony. We find these claims unpersuasive.
(Apparently this guy was just re-tried and released--rosco)
