()

PER CURIAM

Read Full-Text Decision

EMT Kahl appealed from two judgments convicting him of forcible touching and sexual abuse. Accusatory instrument charged Kahl after an ambulance patient he was transporting complained her inserted his finger inside her vagina, yet did not inform her beforehand what he was going to do, claiming thereafter it was to check for internal bleeding. Kahl appealed arguing the determination he committed the act for purpose of sexual gratification was against the weight of the evidence, and as there was no application of force, the guilty verdict for forcible touching was against the weight of the evidence. Yet, the panel disagreed finding the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence, concluding the judgments of conviction should be affirmed. It stated EMT protocol only authorized inserting a finger in a patient’s vagina only if she was delivering a baby while in the ambulance, specifically if the umbilical cord was wrapped around the infant’s neck. Thus, it was established Kahl’s actions violated EMT protocol, rejecting Kahl’s claim he was an inexperienced EMT who made a mistake as he was an EMT for five years, and certified as an advanced EMT. Also, the patient’s alleged consent did not occur until after the conduct, and vitiated as it was obtained by “fraud in the fact.”

PER CURIAM

Read Full-Text Decision

EMT Kahl appealed from two judgments convicting him of forcible touching and sexual abuse. Accusatory instrument charged Kahl after an ambulance patient he was transporting complained her inserted his finger inside her vagina, yet did not inform her beforehand what he was going to do, claiming thereafter it was to check for internal bleeding. Kahl appealed arguing the determination he committed the act for purpose of sexual gratification was against the weight of the evidence, and as there was no application of force, the guilty verdict for forcible touching was against the weight of the evidence. Yet, the panel disagreed finding the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence, concluding the judgments of conviction should be affirmed. It stated EMT protocol only authorized inserting a finger in a patient’s vagina only if she was delivering a baby while in the ambulance, specifically if the umbilical cord was wrapped around the infant’s neck. Thus, it was established Kahl’s actions violated EMT protocol, rejecting Kahl’s claim he was an inexperienced EMT who made a mistake as he was an EMT for five years, and certified as an advanced EMT. Also, the patient’s alleged consent did not occur until after the conduct, and vitiated as it was obtained by “fraud in the fact.”