People v. Alonzo, 16 N.Y.3d 267 (2011)

When a sexual assault involves a single, uninterrupted attack with multiple instances of touching, it constitutes one count of sexual abuse, not multiple counts for each individual touch.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant could be charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse for a single, continuous attack where the defendant groped different parts of the victim’s body. The Court held that the defendant could only be charged with one count of sexual abuse per victim. The Court reasoned that the continuous nature of the attack, directed at a single victim, constituted a single crime, even though it involved multiple instances of “sexual contact.” Allowing multiple charges would be inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent and create a risk of over-punishment. The Court emphasized that in determining the number of crimes, the focus should be on legislative intent.

Facts

The defendant lured two women to an apartment. When the women attempted to leave, they found the door locked, and the defendant had hidden the key. Following an argument and intervention by another person in the apartment, the women left. The defendant followed them, attacked one woman by knocking her down and groping her breasts and buttocks. When the second woman intervened, the defendant attacked her in the same manner. The first woman then helped the second, and they managed to escape.

Procedural History

The grand jury indicted the defendant on two counts of unlawful imprisonment and four counts of sexual abuse (two counts per victim, alleging hand-to-breast and hand-to-buttocks contact). The County Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss two of the sexual abuse counts as multiplicitous. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a defendant can be charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse when the evidence shows a single, uninterrupted attack involving multiple instances of touching a victim’s intimate body parts.

Holding

No, because where the evidence before a grand jury shows a single, uninterrupted attack in which the attacker gropes several parts of a victim’s body, the attacker may be charged with only one count of sexual abuse.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals focused on the distinction between duplicity and multiplicity in indictments. While duplicity involves charging multiple offenses in a single count, multiplicity involves charging a single offense in multiple counts. The Court stated, “There is no infallible formula for deciding how many crimes are committed in a particular sequence of events. In each case, the ultimate question is which result is more consistent with the Legislature’s intention.” The Court reasoned that the defendant’s actions constituted a single, uninterrupted course of conduct directed at each victim. The Court stated that “where a defendant, in an uninterrupted course of conduct directed at a single victim, violates a single provision of the Penal Law, he commits but a single crime.” Although there were multiple instances of “sexual contact,” the continuous nature of the attack indicated a single criminal act. The Court used the analogy of a physical assault, stating that multiple swings of a fist would still constitute one assault, not multiple assaults for each swing. To hold otherwise would create the possibility of prosecutorial abuse by multiplying charges based on the same continuous conduct. The Court distinguished its prior cases regarding duplicity, noting that those cases involved separate acts occurring on distinct occasions, unlike the single, uninterrupted act in this case. The court stated “the indictment as returned by the grand jury was multiplicitous”. The Court acknowledged that other cases might not be so clear, but the evidence in this case supported only a single count of sexual abuse for each victim.