{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

people v versogy page 1

people v versogy page 1 - The appellant further contends...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: The appellant further contends that there was not sufficient evidence to find him w. ilty of sexual abuse. Criddle testified that the appellant kicked open the door to u r house, dragged her to the bedroom, forcibly placed an object in her vagina, and 1 en had sexual intercourse with her. The Victim’s testimony alone was sufficient to v sent the case to the jury on the issue whether the appellant was guilty of sexual ‘ nuse. 1 e appellant also asserts on appeal that the indictment was defective. As the state .rrectly notes, this issue is raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, is not urrectly before this court. r the foregoing reasons, the judgment in this cause is due to be, and it is hereby, II ed. ’ ED. AT DO YOU THINK? At what point does marriage give the other spouse a right to enter the property of his or her marriage partner? What test did the court apply in order to determine that the husband had no right to enter the home? HAT CONSTITUTES THE CRIME . COMPUTER TAMPERING? ‘ .. :11: v. Versaggi ‘ York Court of Appeals, 1994 4 N.Y.2d 123 . ester City Court has found defendant guilty of two counts of computer tam- . ‘ g in the second degree (Penal Law section 156.20), determining that he inten- u . y altered two computer programs designed to provide uninterrupted telephone . - 'ce to the offices of the Eastman Kodak Corporation (see, 136 Misc. 2d 361, 518 ‘YS.2d 553).[1] County Court affirmed, Without opinion. Defendant contends that he is not guilty of altering the programs because he did , change them; he merely activated existing instructions which commanded the . puters to shut down. The People maintain that defendant is guilty because he n ged the instructions being received by the computers and thereby prevented computers from performing their intended functions. We agree and therefore i» n the judgment of conviction. . telephone system at Kodak is operated by two SL-100 computers. One, located Kodak’s State Street office in the City of Rochester, operates 7,000 lines and the ‘ a , at the Kodak Park Complex, operates 21,000 lines. On November 10, 1986, ap- m ately 2,560 of the lines at the Kodak Park Complex were shut down and use = other 1,920 impaired for approximately an hour and a half before company em- . ees were able to restore service. As a result, a substantial number of the em- ‘ . ees working at this large industrial complex, with the potential for dangerous -. 'cal spills and accidents, were unable to receive calls, to call outside the com- ‘ a , or to call 911 or similar emergency services. On November 19, 1986, a second a ption occurred. Essentially all service at the State Street office of Kodak was down for four minutes before the computer reactivated itself. As a result, all People v. Versaggi 4 3 5 ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online