In the Matter of J. W., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Juvenile delinquency adjudication; sufficiency of the evidence; correction of a typographical error in the petition misidentifying the statutory subsection (Penal Law § 130.65[1] [sexual abuse by forcible compulsion] vs. Penal Law § 130.65[3] [sexual abuse when the other person is less than 11 years old]).
Family Court adjudicated J.W. a juvenile delinquent for acts that would constitute, if committed by an adult, criminal sexual act in the first and third degrees, sexual abuse in the first, second, and third degrees, sexual misconduct, and endangering the welfare of a child, and imposed a 12-month conditional discharge.
Nothing substantive; the orders were modified only to correct the statutory citation on the second count from Penal Law § 130.65(3) to § 130.65(1).
The petition’s text clearly alleged forcible compulsion and was supported by the victim’s statements and deposition; the first-degree criminal sexual act count (former Penal Law § 130.50[1] [first-degree criminal sexual act by forcible compulsion]) also required forcible compulsion. No prejudice resulted from the typographical error.
Background
The victim, age 12 at the time, gave a detailed account of sexual abuse by J.W. Her description was corroborated by substantially identical statements she made to medical professionals during a hospital visit. Although she reported the incident seven months later, the delay was satisfactorily explained. Family Court credited her testimony over any contrary inferences and found the evidence sufficient under the weight-of-the-evidence standard.
Lower Court Decision
Family Court, Bronx County, found that J.W. committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute first- and third-degree criminal sexual act, first-, second-, and third-degree sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, and endangering the welfare of a child, and imposed a 12-month conditional discharge.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division affirmed on the weight of the evidence, deferring to Family Court’s credibility findings, and modified the fact-finding and dispositional orders solely to correct a typographical error, amending the second count to charge Penal Law § 130.65(1) (forcible compulsion) instead of § 130.65(3). No costs were awarded.
Legal Significance
Confirms that a juvenile delinquency petition may be corrected to conform to the allegations and proof where a statutory subsection is mis-cited but the factual narrative clearly tracks the intended offense, and no prejudice is shown. Also reiterates that corroborated victim testimony—even with a reporting delay that is satisfactorily explained—can sustain a finding under the weight-of-the-evidence standard.
A mis-citation of a Penal Law subsection in a juvenile petition is a correctable typographical error when the petition’s text and supporting deposition clearly allege the intended offense (here, forcible compulsion under Penal Law § 130.65[1]), and the adjudication will be affirmed where the victim’s corroborated account satisfies the weight of the evidence.