## Facts

- Charles Anthony Thompson (35) and the complainant (16) were inmates at the Albany County Jail.
- The complainant was housed on a juvenile tier; jail policy barred adult inmates from entering that area, though Thompson was allowed access to an adjacent walkway (the catwalk) separated from the juvenile bullpen by bars.
- Before the incident, Thompson had spoken with the complainant and once displayed physical dominance by lifting him over his head.
- On August 6, 1981, Thompson called the complainant to the bars and demanded oral sex.
- When the complainant refused, Thompson threatened to “kick [his] ass” or have others do so, warned that “anything could happen” if the complainant left the tier, and stated he could “put the word out” so others would assault him; Thompson also implied compliance would prevent trouble.
- Fearing retaliation in the jail environment, the complainant submitted to acts of oral sodomy while the two remained on opposite sides of the bars.
- Another inmate observed parts of the incident and heard some of the threats.
- The complainant later sought protective custody and reported the incident.
- A jury convicted Thompson of two counts of first-degree sodomy (forcible compulsion). The Appellate Division reversed for insufficient proof of forcible compulsion and ordered a new trial on certain lesser counts; the prosecution appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence is legally sufficient to prove “forcible compulsion” by threat placing the victim in fear of “immediate” physical injury when the defendant’s threats are made while the parties are separated by jail bars.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division.
- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find forcible compulsion by threats causing fear of immediate physical injury, despite the physical barrier at the moment of the threats.
- The case was remitted to the Appellate Division for factual review and resolution of issues it had not reached.

## Legal Principles

- Legal sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could find each element proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences.
- Under Penal Law § 130.00(8), “forcible compulsion” includes an express or implied threat that places the victim in fear of “immediate” physical injury.
- “Immediate” does not require that the threatened harm be capable of instantaneous execution at the precise moment of the sexual act; it is satisfied when the threat reasonably conveys harm likely to occur without delay or in the near future, in context.
- A threat to cause injury through third parties can constitute forcible compulsion; the statute does not require that the defendant personally inflict the threatened harm.
- In assessing the reasonableness of the victim’s fear, the factfinder may consider situational realities, including custodial settings, disparities in age and strength, and credible threats of retaliatory violence.

## Conclusion

The court held that threats in a jail setting may amount to forcible compulsion when they cause a victim to reasonably fear near-term physical harm, even if a barrier prevents instantaneous execution at the moment the threats are made.


People v. Thompson, 72 N.Y.2d 410, 530 N.E.2d 839 (N.Y. 1988)