Skip to main content

Couple allegedly caught having sex on picnic table in Farrall Park

By Howard B. Owens

A 41-year-old Batavia woman has been charged with adultery after being caught engaged in sexual intercourse on a picnic table in Farrall Park.

The woman was arrested along with a 29-year-old Oakfield man and both were charged with public lewdness.

The man was identified by Batavia Police as Justin M. Amend.

Because the woman is married with children, The Batavian has chosen to withhold her name.

UPDATE: After more thought (see our post explaining the reversal of the decision here), we've decided to publish the female suspect's name. It is Suzanne M. Corona.

Sgt. John Peck said that Officer Matt Baldwin was dispatched to Farrall Park about 5:15 p.m. after parents in the park called police. Baldwin witnessed the couple still engaged in sex when he arrived.

"There was a little alcohol involved," Peck said. "They initially didn't seem too embarrassed."

Peck acknowledge that adultery charges are rare these days.

"Many people probably don't realize it's still a crime," Peck said.

He said Amend was not charged with adultery because he was apparently not aware the woman was married.

Both suspects were issued appearance tickets for City Court on June 8 and released.

Jeremiah Pedro

really??
on one hand this is funny.
on the other hand I'm a parent of three children and if I were at the park with my kids then I would be kinda pissed off. It wasn't even dark out yet. why didn't they just use a car one of them had to have had a car.
Then there is the part about adultery still being on the books as a crime. That's kind of surprising but kudo's to the Police Officer for being that familiar with the penal code. I thought that the military were the only ones that still considered that a chargeable offense.

Jun 4, 2010, 11:18pm Permalink
Bob Price

Hmmm....well,it'll probably be on the Buzz Monday morning-they will be at TVFCU this morning-I'm sure someone will let them know.Batavia has gotten quite a bit of airtime the last few months there.....

Jun 5, 2010, 8:49am Permalink
charlene shultz

I DONT think justin name should be public ,and not hers , she is the one married ,but it happens on tv all the time ! yes point is SHE is married . EVER HAVE A CONVERSATION WHERE IS THE CRAZIEST PLACE ?

Jun 5, 2010, 10:30am Permalink
Jason Murray

I think all names should be posted no matter the background of the person. half the reason of a blotter is public humiliation. if they didn't care about people seeing them in the park they should care about there name being posted for all to see

Jun 5, 2010, 11:06am Permalink
Gabor Deutsch

I would only expect that type of behavior at a Dog Park !

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sr-0-El9cqs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sr-0-El9cqs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Jun 5, 2010, 11:21am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Last year, there was an Oakfield man caught in a similar situation. We eventually published his name. Part of the reason I asked the police for the name was I was curious if it was the same guy. It is not. But I also thought others who remember that incident would have the same question.

The main reason I didn't publish the woman's name is consideration for her children. In my judgment, the children might be subject to a little more humiliation than if mom got popped for shoplifting or DWI or any of the other crimes we often include names and addresses for.

Jun 5, 2010, 11:27am Permalink
wayne bell

Howard I have become a fan of you and your web site and think that it is the best for local information, but I feel that you are being a bit of a hypocrite for not publishing both names in this instance. As the old addage goes, It takes two to tango, too many times the man is blame for these type situations and not the woman, see Tiger Woods , I am not for embarrassing people or coming to quick judgement as the Daily News does, but fair is fair and if you are going to make his name public than she also must come under the scruntiny of your web site and the public. Please keep up the great work and I hope you take this comment as just 1 mans opinion, I look forward to opening this site everyday after work or anytime I hear a number of sirens in the city because I know you will have the 411as soon as possible.

Jun 5, 2010, 12:23pm Permalink
Dan Kennedy

Howard --

Tough call, but I think you should have run both names or neither. Consider that the charge -- adultery -- is completely bogus. That would argue against running either name. And if they had been hit with a legitimate charge, like having sex in public, then I don't see what excuse there would be for naming one without the other.

I realize you want to spare her children embarrassment, but as Dave Olsen says, I suspect it's way too late for that.

Overall, though, I think you would have been fine if you had left out both names until/unless they are convicted.

Jun 5, 2010, 12:36pm Permalink
Gabor Deutsch

The last time something like this happened names were withheld and I complained. A few days later one of the people got in trouble again and names were posted. I do remember being told : " If you don't like it then start your own website" or something to that affect.

Jun 5, 2010, 12:54pm Permalink
Rebecca Beach

Okay Howard--I can't be quiet on THIS one. This park is in my neighborhood. The woman's name SHOULD be published-this is discrimination. Married? With children? Then she should not be in a public park "doing the horizontal boogy" at suppertime.She should be mature enough to know better--and if not--she does not have the capacity to raise children to know right from wrong.Thank you to those who called in the incident and to the police officers that responded to go through with charging them with the offense. Not only should her name be published but the pair of them should be made to scrub down the picnic tables with bleach.

Jun 5, 2010, 2:26pm Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

Sorry folks, I agree with Howard on this. It would be so unfair for these children to endure the humiliation due to the actions of their mother.

Jun 5, 2010, 3:22pm Permalink
Gabor Deutsch

LOL@Frank. Let the spouse be the last to know and I smell paternity test for the kids!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JBZvWTeMgi8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JBZvWTeMgi8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Jun 5, 2010, 6:04pm Permalink
George Richardson

"Love is where you find it, when you find no love at home, and there's nothing cold as ashes, after the fire is gone" -L. E. White
Justin is probably high fiving with his drinking buddies to celebrate his new found fame. What a sorry cheapskate, I'll bet it will be a long time before he feels a woman's warm embrace again. A long, long time. Like the 29 years that went by before this time.

Jun 5, 2010, 7:39pm Permalink
Rebecca Beach

Odds are those kids probably don't have the same last name as their mother so who would know they were related??LOL... Mama was naughty and should be punished. She should think about her children before breaking the law.I am sure that EVERY person in the police blotter has someone in their life that is embarressed by their arrest.Shall we now censor all names????

Jun 5, 2010, 7:46pm Permalink
George Richardson

Well, Becky...if the name is ever George Richardson I would have to say yes, censor the hell out of those names. Goerge Richards would work for me, that's what they put on my drivers license for one three year period and they told me it would cost me $10 to get a new one. I didn't care, my signature just became deliberately sloppy after that and has stayed that way ever since.

Jun 5, 2010, 8:35pm Permalink
Ronald Konieczny

Howard;

Good head on your shoulders. Sometimes journalism has to be discreet. Most of the news of our times is filthy and without cause only to hurt others.

I remember on the program "DRAGNET" Joe Friday only wanted "just the facts ma'm" and some of the "names were changed to protect the innocent."

Jun 5, 2010, 10:01pm Permalink
Sean Evans

Howard,

I must agree with you for withholding the mother's name. On her side, there are innocent victims in the children. Do I think that she deserves all of the embarrassment that she gets? I absolutely do. Do I think the children deserve the same embarrassment? I absolutely do not. By running her name through the mud, you will inadvertently be subjecting the children to harassment and social scarring. I can see why you would not want to do that, as I would not want to do that if I were in your shoes. As for the male, if he does not have the innocent victim associated with him, then he is fair game. People think it should be fair, but you are not protecting the mother. You are protecting the children, and the children's rights to privacy far outweigh the need to publish the mothers name.

Jun 5, 2010, 10:43pm Permalink
Michele Case

It is very sad that so many of you want to know names...I believe Howard probably should have held the man's name as well, but I strongly agree with holding the womans name for the sake of her children. Of what possible good would it be for you people to know her name? Then you can mock her if you know her? Spread more gossip? She was caught in the act...just like in the Bible...who wants to throw the first stone? Jesus felt that the men who set her up were much worse! They had to have known when and how to catch her "in the act" as required by the law. Unfortunately when people are ACCUSED of a crime their name is printed in the paper, on line and over the radio. I recently suffered the same. Even when found not guilty, the damage is done! I cannot enlighten you of the circumstances or players in my case, but I can say it will come out eventually and it is NOTHING like what was reported! My children have suffered from this more than you will ever know and I hope for the sake of other children in similar circumstances this practice ends. God Bless you all.

Jun 5, 2010, 10:52pm Permalink
Jason Murray

im sure this isnt the only thing that this mother has done to embarrass these kids.

how is the adultery charge bogus. she's married, she cheated end of story

Jun 5, 2010, 11:47pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Personally, I don't care who she is. Howard has set standards for this site and if he doesn't stick to them, then what's the point? In my humble opinion, be true to yourself, even if some people including me, don't like it.

Jun 6, 2010, 9:16am Permalink
Roxanna Yaeger

I am appalled by the act of these adults and I agree it needs to be dealt with in an expedient and legal manner. HOWEVER the charge of ADULTERY? What a way to impose your own morality on others! I believe the officer who made these charges needs to take a good long look into his own life and motives!! I would venture to guess that hundreds of Batavians and those who live in Genesee County could be arrested for this offence and possibly even some of the police officers themselves!I suggest that you add fornication to the list also if you are going to do make these kinds of rediculous charges.L et's not forget the real issue here. Where do you people live in the 1400's? or BC? Jesus didn't even charge the woman who was "Caught"" in the act of adultery. I have often wondered where the man was that she was caught with? Most likely the one that was going to "CAST THE FIRST STONE!! Come On Get Real!!

Jun 6, 2010, 9:43am Permalink
James Pinson

Why is everyone so concerned with the woman's children, but noone has even considered the possibility that Justin may have children as well? I am also a little confused about the difference between this incident and the one in the Santino's parking lot a while back... There was such hesitation on your part, Howard, in releasing that name and no hesitation in this case... I'm having a hard time seeing the distinction.

Jun 6, 2010, 10:16am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

We've amended the post to include the female suspect's name. You can <a href="http://thebatavian.com/blogs/howard-owens/naming-names-police-reports/1… about our decision here</a>.

As for the discussion about her being charged with adultery -- the law is on the books. It's the job of the police to enforce the laws on the books. It's up to the courts to decide how to proceed with those charges.

Jun 6, 2010, 1:26pm Permalink
George Richardson

They will both be charged with public lewdness and the adultery charge will be dropped. I would not have printed her name because now Mr Corona has to take action or his machismo will be in jeopardy. I hope they can work it out peacefully. If not, watch for his name in the Batavian.

Jun 6, 2010, 2:41pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Like I said, George -- not my place to predict outcomes.

And we don't really know how individuals will react. Each person is different.

Of all the DWIs we've published, for example, I bet some has caused strife in marriages, and in others its brought couples closer together.

Jun 6, 2010, 3:15pm Permalink
Liz Fuchs

Kudos on publishing the name, I agree with your decision! You are an amazing journalist, and thank you for keeping us in touch with our community.

On another note, I'm happy that adultry is still a crime. So many people these days are entering into a marriage like it's a new dance club. The divorce rate being so high (i do not have statistics), it's surprising they haven't made it more difficult to become married. Adultry is a cowards way of saying the want to end the marriage. You could get legally seperated or divorced. Either way she was in a park that was open to the public and during day light hours. Any of that neighborhood could have seen her. Not to count the children that now may have been traumatized. I'm all for hearing the other person's side of the story.... But really... no matter what she could say, could save face for the family she just humiliated! Absolutely appalled!

Jun 6, 2010, 6:06pm Permalink
Roxanna Yaeger

For those of you that accused me of attacking Howard I did no such thing. As I wrote I was not even thinking of Howard. And for those of you that accused me of passing judgement, what are you doing? I know I passed judgement. I have a right to pass judgement. We all do it every day. I am not easily intimidated.I am sorry Howard caved. I really am.

Jun 7, 2010, 7:58am Permalink
Roxanna Yaeger

I posted this under someone elses comment as a reply but I want to do this here. This is a wonderful way to express ourselves and our opinions although we do set ourselves up for negative response but WHAT FUN!!! This is so much easier than writing a letter to the editor (dang I'm old). I think we should all get together and buy Howard lunch at least have coffee together.Can you even picture it. We should also invite the arresting officer!! I really am a people person and what a mix we are sort of like a fruit salad :) I love the videos.

Jun 7, 2010, 8:47am Permalink
Liz Fuchs

Roxanna, i do not believe you were attacking Howard. You are your own person, with your own opinion. Personally i feel Howard did a great job, taking all things into consideration. But as in most cases with new opinions being brought to light, there are times people realize maybe their own opinion faultered a bit. I think accepting that, then doing something different that he felt was still right took more courage than not. Again, just my opinion. But your right, we should buy him a coffee at best.

Jun 7, 2010, 9:15am Permalink

Authentically Local