No. 77 People v Stephen Sedlock

After a jury trial in Binghamton City Court, Stephen Sedlock was convicted of a misdemeanor
count of forcible touching under Penal Law § 130.52 and sentenced to a year in jail. The charge was
based on the statement of an 18-year-old member of Sedlock's Boy Scout Troop, a close family friend who lived in Sedlock's home from December 2002 through June 2003. The complainant first reported to police in May 2004 that Sedlock "would pinch my penis over my clothes" when they engaged in a "play fight" during that period, when he was 17 years old. When Sedlock moved to dismiss the charge, based in part on his claim that the time frame alleged was unconstitutionally broad, the prosecution clarified in a bill of particulars that the charge was based on forcible touching "on one occasion between December 2002 and June 2003."

City Court denied the motion. On appeal, Broome County Court affirmed the conviction without specifically addressing the time frame issue. Sedlock contends he was deprived of due process by the prosecution's failure to narrow the seven-month period in which the crime was alleged to have occurred, citing People v Keindl (68 NY2d 410) and subsequent cases, which held that nine months is too long. "It is unreasonable to expect an accused to account for all of his actions for some 210 days," he argues. "Had the time frame been narrowed in some way, the defendant might have had an alibi defense; he might have called witnesses who were able to directly contradict [the complainant's] allegations.... Because of the prosecution's failure to make any attempt to narrow the time frame, however, the defendant was deprived of the ability to present a meaningful defense."

The prosecution argues that the time frame alleged in this case is shorter than those found
objectionable in the Keindl line of cases. Contending the crime was based on one in a series of incidents that went on for years, the prosecution says, "The sheer size and magnitude of this criminal pattern, which included a large number of hugging, kissing, touching and pinching incidents, contributed to [the complainant's] inability to specify when the acts happened." It also argues that "time was not an important element of this offense."