Police Beat: Corfu teen accused of raping 14-year-old girl
Cody L. Pahuta, 18, of 9548 Alleghany Road, Corfu, is charged with rape in the second degree, a criminal sexual act and endangering the welfare of a child. Pahuta is accused of having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl. He was jailed on $10,000 bail. The case was investigated by Village of Corfu Police.
Joel D. Prouty, 23, of 705 Old State Road, Bergen, is charged with DWI, aggravated DWI with a BAC of .08 percent or greater and citations for alleged unsafe lane change, consumption of alcohol in a motor vehicle, uninspected motor vehicle and failure to notify DMV of an address change. Prouty was stopped by Deputy Jason Saile on Thwing Road in Stafford following a report of a suspicious person in the area. Prouty was issued an appearance ticket.
Here's the definition of rape in the second degree in New York § 130.30 Rape in the second degree. A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when: 1. being eighteen years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person less than fifteen years old; or 2. he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally incapacitated. It shall be an affirmative defense to the crime of rape in the second degree as defined in subdivision one of this section that the defendant was less than four years older than the victim at the time of the act. Rape in the second degree is a class D felony. source There is a difference, I think, between how men and women relate to sex. It's more than just a biological act (which has its own consequences), it's also an emotional act. Fourteen is way to young to consider that a girl can be giving informed consent, especially in today's highly sexualized society. There is a valid point, possibly, for whether just a defendant should have a sex crimes file for life, appearing in public databases. Again, especially in today's highly sexualized society. For the record, I'm not commenting on the possible guilt or innocence of the particular named individual, but just the theory behind the law. As for Prouty, law enforcement officers appropriately have a good deal of discretion. A cooperative accused will receive less harsh treatment than an uncooperative accused for the same offense. And there can be other factors the officer can consider. It's a judgment call sometimes. Differing treatment does not necessarily imply "knowing somebody" (though that may be a factor as well). I'm just saying, I wouldn't read too much into it. We have pretty limited information about the incident.
Unfortunately,or fortunately,depending on what side of the fence you're on,I believe ,and unless the law has been changed,a 14 year old girl cannot give consent, therefore cannot have consensual sex.
This case is going to be interesting to follow... unfortunately. How much nicer if it never happened. The law is complex, and convoluted, and I have to scratch my heard and wonder who and how the hell they came up with some of it???
"if the child is at least 13 and younger than 15, and if the adult is less than four years older than the child at the time of the sexual conduct, then that would release the adult defendant of criminal responsibility. Because this is an affirmative defense, the defendant, who usually carries no burden of proof at trial, has the burden of proving the age difference beyond a preponderance of the evidence (which is far less than the prosecution's burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.). Further, a 17-year-old would not be guilty of rape of a 12-year-old if the younger child agreed to the act. The 17-year-old might be guilty of a misdemeanor sexual offense, however."
So if a 17 year old is having sexual relations with a 13 year old, it is at worst a "misdemeanor sexual offense". But if the 17 year old turns 18 before the 13 year old turns 14, then it becomes "rape".
Are we having fun yet?
Brian. You do realize, I hope, that "this case" happened back in 2009.
The 14 year old girl would now be in her early 20's.
But, I guess it would be easy, now, to research back and find out the outcome of the trial.
I don't know why a couple of comments on this post popped up in the recent comment box on the left of the page. There's no evidence they were edited. But, yes, this is an old post.
Howard, do you know what was the result of this case since it is 9 years old?
No I didn't notice the original date. I don't understand why sometimes when I'm looking at the Batavian an old story like this comes up among the current stuff. I'm thinking it was in the 'Recent Comment" list. Why??? Oh well.
Brian. I can't explain ALL the irregularities on here, but, this old story popped up because Doug Yeomans posted a comment yesterday (on an 8 year old story).
Ed, no, Doug's comment is old. For some reason, it popped up in recent comments. I have no idea why.
speaking of Doug, haven't heard from him in a long time.... I hope all is well with him.... maybe he retired and he's out fishing somewhere without internet.
OK, Howard. If you say Doug's comment is an "old" one, I guess I have to believe you. As I didn't even know thebatavian existed in 2009, I don't have a screenshot of that original comment thread (that's a poke, Howard).
I assumed (MY mistake) that, because the time/date stamp of Doug's comment read Jan. 2009, it was a "new" comment. Especially since nobody else's comment from that original thread had their time/date stamp changed. As I told Brian, "I can't explain ALL the irregularities on here".
D'ya suppose it's possible that Doug (could have) reposted his comment yesterday? I guess we'll never know, unless Doug chimes in on whether that's what happened. No biggie, either way.