()

Judge Donald Leo

Read Full-Text Decision

Manuel, charged with forcible touching, sexual abuse, harassment and endangering the welfare of a child, sought dismissal of the information as facially insufficient. The superseding information provided that the ADA was informed by complainant that Manuel grabbed her buttocks and touched her vagina without her consent on separate occasions. It was also alleged Manuel showed complainant explicit materials, among other things. Manuel argued the accusatory instrument was multiplicitous as it charged him with multiple counts of endangering the welfare of a child over the same period of time. The court stated an accusatory instrument could not charge a defendant with more than one count of a crime that may be characterized as a continuing offense, unless there was an interruption in the course of conduct. According, the court concluded each count of the endangering the welfare of a child charge relied on a separate and distinct act. It stated each count constituted a single offense relying on different factual allegations, not a continuing course of conduct. Therefore, the court found the accusatory instrument was not multiplicitous regarding the endangering the welfare of a child charge, denying dismissal.