People v Haynesworth (Eric)

[*1] People v Haynesworth (Eric) 2004 NY Slip Op 50749(U) Decided on July 1, 2004 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 1, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:McCABE, P.J., RUDOLPH and ANGIOLILLO, JJ.
NO. 2003-772 N CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

ERIC HAYNESWORTH, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the District Court, Nassau County (S. Kluewer, J.), rendered on May 5, 2003, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]) and imposing sentence.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jurors, drawing upon their common human experience and common-sense understanding of the nature of children, could reasonably conclude that defendant uttered the inappropriate request to sniff the child's panties, that the remark was likely to have caused the child harm, and that defendant knew the remark was likely to cause the child to suffer harm (see People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196, 203 [1979]; People v Wachowicz, 22 NY2d 369, 372 [1968]). Moreover, upon our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the alleged inconsistencies in the trial testimony did not undermine the complainant's credibility so as to render her testimony insufficient to prove defendant's guilt (see People v Jones, 284 AD2d 411 [2001]; People v Sirghi, 273 AD2d 417 [2000]). Moreover, the jury's acquittal of the charges relating to other
children did not undermine the weight and sufficiency of the evidence so as warrant a different result with respect to the verdict finding defendant guilty of endangering the welfare of Theresa [*2](see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]).
Decision Date: July 01, 2004