CLAIM OF GROIN RASH GIVEN LITTLE CREDENCE
After he was convicted of “public lewdness,” T. appealed
And upon its review of the record, the Appellate Term, First Department, was of the view that the outcome was supported by “legally sufficient evidence.”
Apparently, T was observed on a park bench in Union Square Park masturbating with his hand in his pocket. While he claimed he was reacting to an itch triggered by a rash, the AT2 deferred to the Criminal Court’s credibility findings, including its acceptance of the testimony of the police officers who had observed what was transpiring.
While T. attempted to introduce medical testimony that he had been prescribed an anti-fungal medication two weeks before the incident and prescribed a steroid cream to treat the “itchiness in his groin” some three months later, the AT1 thought that evidence was speculative and had been properly excluded, particularly since the doctor wasn’t qualified as an expert and hadn’t actually treated the defendant.
Think that rubbed T. the wrong way?
# # #
DECISION