## Facts

- A 49-year-old woman (about 5'0", 130 pounds) entered the elevator of her apartment building in the Bronx around 6:00 p.m.
- A 15-year-old male (about 5'7", over 200 pounds) entered with her, selected a floor, and manipulated the elevator controls so it stopped between floors with the shaft door open.
- In the stalled elevator, the defendant demanded that the complainant remove her clothes; after repeating the demand, she complied.
- Over the next 10–15 minutes, the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse and sodomy with the complainant.
- The complainant did not scream or physically resist; she testified she felt trapped, believed no one would hear or help her, and feared the situation.
- The defendant restarted the elevator, exited on another floor, and the complainant promptly reported the incident, leading to identification and arrest.
- The defendant was tried and convicted by a jury of first-degree rape and first-degree sodomy.
- The defense moved for a trial order of dismissal for legal insufficiency of proof of “forcible compulsion”; the court reserved decision, submitted the case to the jury, and decided the motion after the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether “forcible compulsion” was proven when the complainant submitted without physical resistance and without an explicit verbal threat, while confined in a stalled elevator controlled by a much larger assailant.
2. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the prosecution, was legally sufficient to permit a rational jury to find first-degree rape and first-degree sodomy beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The court denied the post-verdict motion to dismiss for legal insufficiency.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find “forcible compulsion” beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The guilty verdicts for first-degree rape and first-degree sodomy were allowed to stand.

## Legal Principles

- “Forcible compulsion” may be established by physical force or by a threat—express or implied—of immediate death or serious physical injury.
- A victim’s lack of physical resistance or failure to cry out does not, by itself, negate forcible compulsion; the inquiry centers on the defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances.
- Confinement and environmental control (such as immobilizing a victim by stalling an elevator) can constitute physical force and can support an implied threat.
- Whether resistance was feasible or safe is assessed in context, including relative size and strength and the apparent futility or danger of resisting.

## Conclusion

The court held that a jury could reasonably find forcible compulsion where the defendant created a coercive confinement by stalling an elevator, exploited a significant size disparity, and induced submission through circumstances implying immediate danger, even absent explicit threats or physical resistance.


People v. Dorsey, 429 N.Y.S.2d 828 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1980)