11 N.Y.3d 23 (2008)
r
r
The actus reus of a crime, such as criminal sexual act in the third degree, does not automatically constitute a “material element” of falsifying business records in the first degree simply because the falsification was intended to conceal the sexual act; therefore, consecutive sentences for these crimes are permissible.
r
r
Summary
r
Defendant, a high school assistant principal, pleaded guilty to criminal sexual act in the third degree and falsifying business records in the first degree, among other charges. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences for these felonies. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling that the consecutive sentences were legal under Penal Law § 70.25 (2), holding that the actus reus of the sex offense was not a material element of the falsifying business records offense, even though the falsification was intended to conceal the sexual abuse. This case clarifies that the intent to conceal a crime, by itself, does not make the concealed crime a material element of falsifying business records.
r
r
Facts
r
Juan Paveras, an assistant principal, sexually abused students between June 2003 and July 2004, including performing oral sex on a 14-year-old. To prevent the boys from disclosing his actions, Paveras falsified records of a summer youth employment program to pay them for work they did not perform. The boys eventually revealed the abuse, leading to a 134-count indictment against Paveras. After fleeing to the Dominican Republic and being returned, Paveras pleaded guilty to multiple felonies and misdemeanors, including criminal sexual act in the third degree and four counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Paveras pleaded guilty in New York State Supreme Court. He appealed the imposed sentence arguing that the consecutive sentence for criminal sexual act in the third degree was illegal under Penal Law § 70.25 (2). The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, except for vacating a supplemental sex offender fee and modifying orders of protection. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the actus reus of criminal sexual act in the third degree constitutes a “material element” of falsifying business records in the first degree, thereby precluding consecutive sentences under Penal Law § 70.25 (2).
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the actus reus of the sex offense (oral sexual conduct) is distinct from the actus reus of falsifying business records (creating a false entry), and the intent to conceal the sex offense does not make it a material element of the falsifying business records charge.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals analyzed Penal Law § 70.25 (2), which mandates concurrent sentences for offenses committed through a single act, or when one act constitutes both offenses, or when an act constitutes one offense and a material element of the other. The Court emphasized that it must examine the statutory definitions of the crimes to determine if the actus reus of one crime is a material element of the other. Citing People v. Day, 73 N.Y.2d 208 (1989), the Court reasoned that the statutory definition of falsifying business records does not render the sex offense a necessary component of the crime. The Court rejected the argument that the