When the kid turned 18 he filed a criminal complaint alleging that Sedlock had "inappropriately touched" him over the years.
Sedlock was accused of touching the boy's penis and kissing him on the lips. It was also alleged that when the two would "play fight," or roughhouse, Sedlock would pinch the child's penis over the latter's clothes.
When a criminal case was brought, Sedlock's counsel demanded that the prosecution provide "the precise date(s), time(s) and location(s) of the offense(s) alleged," but the best the People could do was respond with a seven month time frame: "December of 2002 and June 2003 at [defendant's home]."
Although Sedlock's counsel objected to the inadequacy of the response and its prejudicial impact on the defendant's ability to prepare a defense, the case proceeded to trial, Sedlock was convicted of "Forcible Touching under Penal Law section 130.52," and, received a one-year sentence (which was stayed pending exhaustion of all appeals.)
The case eventually found its way to the Court of Appeals which issued a decision this past week. Our state's highest court agreed that Sedlock's defense had been unfairly impacted by the lack of factual particulars.
While the prosecution need not provide a defendant with "precise" dates and times, any interval given must be sufficiently detailed (or "narrow") so as to allow the accused an opportunity to respond to the charges made. Given the victim's age and intelligence, the Court of Appeals was of the opinion that it was inexcusable for the prosecution to have failed (or refused) to supply a clearer time frame for the event(s) which led to the criminal charge and was compelled to dismiss the case in its entirety.
No merit badges will be awarded here.
For a copy of the Court of Appeal's decision, please use this link: People v. Sedlock