FATHER GETS 16
In People v. Stuckey, Anderson Stuckey was accused of having sexual intercourse with his young daughter over the course of two years.
When the child finally disclosed to a teacher what her father had supposedly been doing, Stuckey objected to the use of his daughter's statements as "hearsay" -- utterances lacking appropriate evidentiary value (and thus unusable in a court of law).
When he was convicted of "sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, criminal contempt in the first degree (five counts), criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts)" and sentenced to a 16-year term, he appealed.
The Appellate Division, First Department, found the child's statements qualified under the "prompt outcry" exception to the hearsay rule.
"An outcry of rape is prompt if made at the first suitable opportunity and is a relative concept dependent on the facts." Given the victim's young age, and fear of revealing her father's misconduct, the AD1 concluded the minor's statements -- made some three days after the last attack -- fell within the law's exception.
No outcry there.
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Stuckey
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2640
Comments
How could Stuckey not have been irreparably prejudiced by the mid-trial disclosure of an "expert" who would testify for the prosecution on that pillar of modern science, "child sexual abuse accomodation syndrome." The court says his remedy should have been for his defense counsel to ask for an adjournment to prepare for the witness. And how long of an adjournment would he receive with a jury sworn in and already having heard testimony?
Ugly facts cover up bad law and the use of pseudoscience to convict. Cases like this come back and bite lawyers in the ass in myriad, unexpected ways.
http://www.falseallegations.com/csaas.htm
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | July 23, 2008 9:45 PM
I enjoy your observations, mr. pasmontte, and have been reading them with relish for the last year, but it has been observed you do not believe anyone arrested and convicted is guilty of their crimes.
Only innocent people are arrested and go to jail, isn't that true? This a one big right ring conspiracy to fill our jails with innocent people and that keep lots of people working.
Posted by: Rollanda | July 23, 2008 10:18 PM
I never say these people are innocent. They are, however, entitled to due process of law.
Remember:
""All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.""
-- Edmund Burke
That's as conservative as it gets.
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | July 24, 2008 7:45 AM