The People of the State of New York v. Emmanuel Jenkins
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law appeal involving whether the evidence supported convictions for attempted first-degree rape and first-degree robbery arising from an attack by an incarcerated kitchen worker on a civilian employee inside a correctional facility.
County Court, after a nonjury trial, found defendant guilty of attempted rape in the first degree under Penal Law §§ 110.00 [attempt liability], former 130.35 (1) [forcible sexual intercourse], robbery in the first degree under Penal Law § 160.15 (3) [forcibly stealing property while using or threatening the immediate use of a dangerous instrument], assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
The Appellate Division reversed the attempted rape in the first degree conviction under count 1 and the robbery in the first degree conviction under count 2, dismissed those counts of the indictment, and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
The attempted rape conviction was against the weight of the evidence because the proof did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended and came dangerously near to engaging in forcible sexual intercourse, as opposed to some other sexual offense. The robbery conviction was also against the weight of the evidence because the People failed to prove larcenous intent, i.e., an intent to permanently or virtually permanently deprive the victim of her emergency alarm, especially where defendant ran only to the kitchen desk and immediately dropped or threw the alarm there.
Background
The case arose from an incident in a correctional facility kitchen. Defendant, who was confined there and working in the kitchen, followed a female civilian employee to a somewhat secluded area near a storage room. He grabbed her emergency alarm, tried to stop her from activating it, pressed a melted-down and hollowed-out pen with a pointy edge against her neck, fell on top of her, and told her to be quiet. The victim fought back physically and verbally, and about 20 seconds into the attack defendant got up, ran away with the alarm, and then immediately dropped or threw it onto the correction officers' kitchen desk.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court entered judgment convicting defendant on all charged counts after a bench trial and imposed sentence based on the findings that he attempted to rape the victim, forcibly stole the alarm while using a dangerous instrument, assaulted the victim, and possessed a weapon.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the judgment on the facts. It held that, even assuming legal sufficiency, the attempted rape verdict was against the weight of the evidence because the victim's testimony that defendant's hands were 'all over' her, without evidence that he reached under her clothing, tried to remove her pants, or otherwise specifically attempted intercourse, did not prove attempted forcible sexual intercourse beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that the robbery verdict was against the weight of the evidence because the proof showed only a temporary taking of the emergency alarm to interrupt its use, not an intent to exercise permanent or virtually permanent control over it. The court rejected defendant's challenge to the dangerous instrument element, holding that the altered pen, when pressed against the victim's neck, was readily capable of causing serious physical injury under Penal Law § 10.00 (13) [defining a dangerous instrument as an instrument, article, or substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury under the circumstances used]. The remaining convictions for second-degree assault and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon were affirmed, and the ineffective assistance claim was rejected.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores two recurring principles in New York criminal law. First, proof of a sexualized attack does not automatically establish attempted rape; the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt both intent to engage in forcible sexual intercourse and conduct that came dangerously near completion of that specific offense. Second, first-degree robbery requires larcenous intent, meaning an intent to permanently or virtually permanently deprive the owner of property; a brief dispossession designed only to disable or interrupt use of property may be insufficient. The case also reaffirms that an otherwise ordinary object can qualify as a dangerous instrument based on how it is used.
A conviction for a more serious offense will not stand where the evidence supports suspicion of criminal conduct but does not prove the specific charged intent beyond a reasonable doubt; here, the court found evidence of assault and weapon possession, but not enough proof of attempted forcible intercourse or permanent theft.