On December 9, 2010, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department of New York heard the case of the People of the State of New York v. Richard P. King in a sex crime case. This sex crime involved a victim who was 11 years old who went swimming at a park with two men. The defendant drank some beer and gave the boy cigars before touching his genitals. He was convicted of sexual abuse in the first and second degrees, forcible touching, and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant claims that there is not sufficient evidence for all of the crimes for which he was charged.
The defendant says that he did not force the victim of the sex crime to submit to any sexual contact. He says that any touching was playful and accidental and that it did not result from a desire for sexual gratification. However, the defendant did not make a motion to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence introduced at trial, so this issue has not been preserved for appellate review. The victim testified that the defendant used force to try to remove the victim’s shorts while they were swimming in a pond. He also said that the defendant tapped his genitals several times while they were wrestling.
Although the defendant denied that the sex crime was driven by a desire for sexual gratification, his roommate testified that he was sexually attracted to the victim who lived next door. In addition, the defendant told the victim that he wanted to use a penis pump on him. The defendant claims that the victim’s testimony at trial was inconsistent with other statements that he had made. However, the Court recognizes that the victim continually said that the defendant forced him into sexual contact while they were at the park, and none of the inconsistencies warranted a rejection of his testimony.
It was also agreed upon that the defendant did have fair representation during the proceedings when counsel made appropriate motions on the defendant’s behalf. Defense also limited the prosecution’s cross-examination of the defendant regarding his prior criminal record. It was stated that the sentence given to the defendant was not excessive. It was therefore determined that the sentence for this sex crime should not be modified since there are no extraordinary circumstances that would call for this. The judgment was affirmed, and Justices Cardona, Peters, Spain, and Egan, Jr. concurred.