Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
People v. Drach
Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 06260Docket: 2017-02549
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 8, 2022; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York upheld the judgment against Robert Drach, who was convicted by a jury on January 20, 2017, for attempted kidnapping in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child, public lewdness, and criminal trespass in the third degree. The incident involved Drach allegedly attempting to abduct a nine-year-old girl playing in her front yard, during which he exposed himself and made inappropriate advances. The complainant's father intervened and restrained Drach until law enforcement arrived. The prosecution presented testimony from the victim and her father, along with surveillance footage and Drach's statements to police admitting his actions and intent. The court found the evidence sufficient to support Drach's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the jury's verdict, indicating it was not against the weight of the evidence. Drach's post-verdict motion did not preserve his claim regarding the merger doctrine, and the court declined to exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction on this issue. Additionally, the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an intoxication jury charge, as Drach did not demonstrate he was so intoxicated that he could not form the necessary criminal intent. Claims regarding the legal standard for the intoxication charge and the right to present a defense were also found to lack merit. The Supreme Court appropriately excluded the defendant's medical records obtained 31 hours post-arrest, determining they were irrelevant to the defendant's intoxication during the alleged crimes and could lead to jury speculation. The court also rightly limited the re-cross-examination of a police witness, maintaining procedural integrity. The Sandoval ruling was deemed a sound exercise of discretion, effectively balancing the probative value of evidence against potential prejudice to the defendant. The imposed sentence was considered reasonable, and the defendant's other arguments were found to lack merit.