This is an appeal case being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department, Appellate Division. The respondent in the case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant of the case is Rupnarine Jaikaran. The judges hearing the case are Mark C. Dillon, J.P., Ariel E. Belen, John M. Leventhal, and Plummer E. Lott, JJ.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a verdict that was made in the Queens County Supreme Court. The original verdict was made by Judge Gavrin and dated the 27th of October, 2008. The order convicted the defendant of endangering the welfare of a child.
Case Background
The defendant is the biological father of the complainant. The complainant was raised in the Netherlands. During the trial the complainant testified that she met the defendant when she was 14 years old and traveled to the United States of America for the first time. The complainant states that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her after they first met in July of 2002. She states that they had sex during subsequent meetings in February of 2003 as well when she was visiting the defendant. In October of 2003 she visited the defendant in the United States again and during this visit she tried to commit suicide and was admitted to the hospital. The complainant reported these allegations to the authorities in the United States in October of 2006.
The defendant was charged with two counts of rape in the second degree. One of these counts was reduced to rape in the third degree at a later time. He was also charged with two counts of incest, one count was dismissed with approval from the People, and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant was found with endangering the welfare of a child during a jury trial.
Court Discussion and Decision
The court has reviewed the case and finds that the guilty verdict from the trial was not weighed against the evidence available in the case.
We also find that the trial court made error by allowing the defendant’s counsel during a cross motion examination of the complainant to preclude the evidence of the hospital records that showed her attempted suicide in October of 2003.
The hospital records include statements made by the complainant that she was not sexually active and that she was not the victim of sexual abuse. A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said this part of the hospital records was admissible under the business records and exempt from the hearsay rule. We find that the court made an error by not allowing the defendant to submit these portions of the hospital records into evidence. This omission was not harmless as part of this case.
The court has reviewed all of the facts of the case and finds that there was an error made during the trial that harmed the defendant. For this reason, the court finds in favor of the defendant and the previous judgment is reversed. The matter will be remitted to the Queens County Supreme Court for a new trial to be held.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers free consultations to those in need of legal advice, whether you have been charged with sex crimes, theft or drug possession. Our offices are located in New York City. You may contact one of the offices at any time to set up an appointment for your free consultation. Our lawyers are happy to discuss your case with you and help you determine the best course of legal action for your particular situation.