Batavia woman pleads not guilty to adultery charge

Police: woman charged with adultery

Updated: Monday, 07 Jun 2010, 7:20 PM EDT
Published : Saturday, 05 Jun 2010, 7:07 PM EDT
  • Posted by: Eli George
BATAVIA, N.Y. (WIVB) - Police say a 41-year-old woman was caught having sex on a picnic table in Farrell Park in Batavia, and now she's been charged with adultery.


Police say the Batavia woman and the 29-year-old Oakfield man were engaged in sexual intercourse in full view of adults and children utilizing the park. Both are charged with public lewdness, but the woman faces the additional charge of adultery. According to The Batavian, police say the 29-year-old does not face adultery charges because he was not aware the woman was married.



Woman pleads not guilty to adultery charge




Tuesday, June 8, 2010 3:00 PM EDT
The woman accused of committing adultery on a picnic table in a city park entered a not guilty plea Tuesday in City Court.

Suzanne M. Corona, 41, of Batavia pleaded not guilty to adultery and public lewdness and is to re-appear with an attorney June 22.

Corona was charged after city police were called to Farrall Park off Otis and James streets Friday afternoon.

An officer said he saw her and Justin M. Amend, 29, of Oakfield enaged in sex on a picnic table under a pavilion, with children and adults in the park.



Amend did not enter a plea in court, but is due back June 30 for arraignment.

— By Scott DeSmit

I think I would do her on a picnic table too...Not in broad daylight though!
smokey1187's Avatar
ditto
cnym's Avatar
  • cnym
  • 06-08-2010, 02:29 PM
God dam it, get a frikin room.
A 41 year old woman doing a 29 year old man. Not bad at all.
She should learn how to Hobby and stay Discreet
jokacz's Avatar
You can plan a pretty picnic but you can't predict the weather.
jr's Avatar
  • jr
  • 06-08-2010, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by NormalBob
Mom...WTF we were supposed to go on a picnic today.
The guy in the photo was her husband, who "forgives and stands by her": http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story...77668&catid=37
The guy in the photo was her husband, who "forgives and stands by her": http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story...77668&catid=37 Originally Posted by jackfengshui
A couple of things jump out at me on this.

According to the radio report I heard, she says her husband is or has undergone gender reassignment surgery which is partially how she was explaining her need for male companionship.

Also, something like only 18 people have ever been charged with this crime since it went on the books. I think the law may be over a 100 years old but know the fact.

The prosecutor just made this national news by charging her with adultery.
Doove's Avatar
  • Doove
  • 06-08-2010, 08:47 PM
Also, something like only 18 people have ever been charged with this crime since it went on the books. Originally Posted by NormalBob
I don't know the relevant requirements, but is there maybe something that requires an officer to charge someone for a crime if they specifically witness it being committed? Especially if it's committed as part of committing a separate crime where charges are going to be filed?

The article i read made it a point of mentioning that the officer knew that she was married, as if that somehow required him to file the charge. Just got me wondering.

And I wonder what the circumstances were for the other 18 times.
For a video clip of Channel 4 coverage: http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/crime/P...-sex-incidents
offshoredrilling's Avatar
I don't know the relevant requirements, but is there maybe something that requires an officer to charge someone for a crime if they specifically witness it being committed? Especially if it's committed as part of committing a separate crime where charges are going to be filed?

The article i read made it a point of mentioning that the officer knew that she was married, as if that somehow required him to file the charge. Just got me wondering.

And I wonder what the circumstances were for the other 18 times. Originally Posted by Doove
What you say is true. The officer did what most will do in this matter. But most times the DA will not go after the charge of adultery. And just go for the sex in the park. And public lewdness never makes the news. Not sure why the DA is going after adultery. As it is if I was the DA I would have dropped the adultery, and just went for the public lewdness. As what most times is done. But then I am not a lawer, nor looking to make my name known, with votes on the line.
sunfish's Avatar
small town news
Section 255.17 Adultery

A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse.


Adultery is a class B misdemeanor.


http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/we...ny3%28b%29.htm


Looks like the story has gone international:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ery.html?cat=9
Suzanne Corona is Taken in Adultery




Published June 09, 2010 by:
Mark Whittington

Suzanne Corona, married mother of three, has been caught having sex with a man on a picnic table in a public park with a man twelve years her junior a short distance away from a children's play area in



the small, New York town of Batavia.

Though apparently most of their clothes were still on when they were caught inflagranti delicto, Suzanne Corona and Justin Amend have been charged with public lewdness. Moreover, Corona has been charged with adultery according to a little known and little used New York state statute that has been on the books for over the century.

"Section 255.17 of the New York State penal law states: 'A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse.'

"It is now considered a Class B misdemeanour and is punishable by a £350 fine and 90 days in jail."

Despite the wording of the law, Justin Amend has not also been charged with the same crime, which would tend to be a problem of selective prosecution.

Most people, even those who engage in it regularly, agree that adultery is morally wrong. It is a violation of a promise made by most couples when they get married and tends to lead to heart ache, legal trouble, and sometimes worse in certain areas of the country where shooting one spouse's lover is still customary. But most people would be shocked to find out that adultery is technically a crime in ten states.

In most cases, marital infidelity has been considered a private matter between the husband, wife, and the correspondent lover. This was true even when the husband was President Bill Clinton, the wife Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the lover Monica Lewinski. Mind, in that case it was really not a private matter, due to the high profile of the people involved and how the dangerous liaisons let to perjury, obstruction of justice, and the second impeachment of a US President in history.

But, as Suzanne Corona's husband is standing by her and appears to have forgiven her for her indiscretion, one cannot see how the matter should be the subjection of a legal prosecution. One suspects that the local



district attorney will drop the adultery charge and the lewd conduct will be pled down. The shame Suzanne Corona is evidently feeling is greater punishment than anything that the State of New York can inflict on her.

Source: Hand-in-hand with her husband, the mother accused of adultery after picnic passion with lover in a U.S. public park, Daily Mail, JUne 9th, 2010
cnym's Avatar
  • cnym
  • 06-10-2010, 02:02 PM
Sounds to me that all the Providers can be charged with Section 255.17 Adultery.
The trick is that you will need a 3rd witness that actually witnessed an act of sexual intercourse !!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF
ROTFLMFAO

There are three basic defenses to an adultery claim: forgiveness by the offended spouse; condonation, or the consent of the non-adultering spouse to the adultery; and recrimination (the notion that two adulteries cancel each other out, legally speaking).

Her Husband did Forgive her, Now She will be left with the public lewdness charge.