Bronx

Published on: October 28, 2012

Appellate Court Reverses Indictment for Larceny Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent and defendant in this case is M.K. The People of the State of New York are the appellants in the case. The Court of Appeals in the state of New York is hearing this case. There were two indictments filed against the defendant, Kirkup, in the Extraordinary Special and the Trial Terms of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. Indictment 7256 charged the defendant with committing the crime of conspiracy. Indictment 7258 charges the defendant of violating section 1864 of the Penal Law.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the People of the State of New York submitted evidence to the Grand Jury that showed that A.F., who is a pharmacist that operates a small retail drug store in Suffolk County along with his successors in interest had ordered drugs from pharmaceutical houses solely for the use of the Suffolk County Home, but in actuality for selling to the public.

Published on: October 27, 2012

Court Rules on Use of Public Health Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter dealing with an application made by P.H., the District Attorney of Suffolk County. He has entered a petition for a judgment and determination of forfeiture under Article 33, Section 3388 of the Public Health Law of the State of New York. The respondent of the case is S.C. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Criminal Term in Suffolk County, Part II.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on the 3rd of September, 1980, the defendant – respondent S.C entered a plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. This plea satisfied the seven charges that were made against him in an indictment. The defendant was then sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one to three years.

Published on: October 26, 2012

Court Dismisses Indictment Against Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal by the defendant J.T.. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. The defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The judgment was rendered on the 19th, 1989 and convicted him of the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on 1985, the defendant, J.T., and his business partner ran a successful roofing business in Suffolk County. They had the business for several years. For several years the defendant, his wife, his business partner, and several of their mutual friends were weekend cocaine users. The defendant used one gram of cocaine a week and this was supplied to him by his business partner.

Published on: October 25, 2012

Court Dismisses Indictment Against Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. The case deals with an appeal being made by O. B. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant is appealing a verdict from a judgment made by the County Court of Suffolk County that was rendered on the 8th of May, 1979 and convicted him of criminally negligent homicide.

Case Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s guilt in this matter was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. At the time of the incident the defendant was driving his vehicle with three passengers inside it. He was going approximately 35 miles an hour. All of the passengers had smoked marijuana. Quite suddenly, one of the passengers told the defendant to stop the car. The passenger was a fifteen year old girl. At first the defendant ignored her and continued to drive. She continuously repeated her request for the car to be stopped and threatened to jump out of the car if he did not stop.

Published on: October 24, 2012

Appellant Claims Evidence Improperly Admitted at Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 1986, there was a gathering of people in the apartment of a woman. The woman requested a man to bring to that event several glassine bags of a white powdery substance which the state asserts was heroin. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that some time during the course of the evening the substance was injected into the body of the woman and her boyfriend. The next day, the substance was injected by two other men to their own body. One of the men took 11 envelopes after agreeing to help the man sell the substance. At about 4:00 p.m. that day, the woman became ill and died of causes apparently unrelated to the case and an investigation was conducted.

As a result of a search of the apartment, several items were seized including a piece of mirror with white powder residue, a box found in the medicine cabinet containing a black shoe lace, syringe, hypodermic needle and bottle cap cooker, an empty bottle cap found in the medicine cabinet, a syringe and needle found in a dresser drawer, and a plastic bag containing white powder which was found in a kitchen drawer. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said after testing by a forensic scientist, only the bottle cap cooker tested positive for the presence of narcotics. The forensic scientist who performed the autopsy of the woman’s body found the presence of substances including quinine but no traces of the presence of either heroin or morphine.

The man and his companion were indicted for three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal injection of a narcotic drug. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the man’s motions for severance were denied and a joint trial was held wherein the other man chose not to testify but the man testified on his own behalf.

Published on: October 24, 2012

Defendant Appeals Based on Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, the state presented evidence about a pharmacologist who was a member of a conspiracy to procure heroin. The pharmacologist and his accomplices were guilty of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance based on a series of events that commenced in the state. Even if the jury found him guilty of both the crime, on appeal, he challenges the state’s exercise of territorial jurisdiction over the second offense only.

The evidence revealed that the leader of the conspiracy was a man. A New York Criminal Lawyer said through a wiretap surveillance of the telephone line to the leader’s residence, the law enforcement authorities discovered that the leader was raising $120,000 to pay a courier fee to obtain a large quantity of heroin to the state. he intercepted conversations cryptically identified the various players in the proposed drug exchange. The state theorized that the pharmacologist’s role in the project was to test the purity of the heroin.

The leader and another individual discussed the pharmacologist’s availability for the project. Upon receiving a telephone call advising that the pharmacologist had been located. Thereafter, a woman used the leader’s telephone to make airline reservations for three men to fly at 8:00 p.m. that evening and all of them were under the same surnames. The law enforcement authorities observed the pharmacologist together with two other men aboard the flight. At the request of an investigator, a state’s troop followed the activities of the three men. A New York Criminal Lawyer said after registering at the airport’s hotel under aliases, they were seen entering and leaving each other’s rooms during the next 24 hours.

Published on: October 24, 2012

Court Discusses Use of Opinion Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On a Tuesday morning, at 4:37 A.M, a police officer was called to the area outside an establishment by the report of a fight. Upon arriving, the officer saw no fight, but observed the defendant’s vehicle parked in the lot with the engine running and the lights on. The officer approached the vehicle and in speaking to the defendant and her passenger, he noted that the defendant was extremely unsteady on her feet, had watery eyes, and had an extremely hard time to understand even the simplest of instructions. Upon testing, the defendant’s blood alcohol level was .00%, showing the absence of alcohol. While defendant refused a request to have a urine sample given for testing, a full DRE was administered at CTS. Thereafter, defendant was arrested and charged with driving while impaired by a drug in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the misdemeanor criminal charge against her of driving while ability impaired by drugs and argues that the first insufficiency arises from the fact that there is no specific statement in either the simplified traffic information or the supporting deposition that the defendant was actually observed behind the steering wheel, in the driver’s seat, or even in the vehicle; that the statement that the other person present was her passenger merely infers that the defendant was the driver; that the second insufficiency arises from the fact that neither the simplified traffic information nor the supporting deposition specify the drug which allegedly impaired the defendant.

Published on: October 24, 2012

Court Rules on SORA Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A man lived in his mother’s house with his sister who was a minor. One day, the man chanced upon his sister in the bathroom of their house. he man tried to rape his sister. The sister resisted and was able to escape from her brother. She reported the incident to their mother and she reported the incident to the police.

Her brother was charged with attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. Prior to the arraignment, the lawyer for the man asked the trial court to order a psychiatric evaluation of the accused. A New York Criminal Lawyer said two psychiatrists examined the accused and they had similar findings. The first psychiatrist rendered an opinion that the accused suffered from psychiatric disorders which were not specified. A second psychiatrist rendered an opinion that the accused suffered from psychosis. Both of them agreed on the finding that the accused was a threat to himself and to others but that he was fit to stand trial because he was capable of understanding the nature of the charges against him and he can assist in defending himself. Both psychiatrists also recommended that the accused be hospitalized. For this reason, the accused was placed under the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and he was sentenced to six months imprisonment and ten years probation.

Published on: October 23, 2012

Court Discusses Lesser Included Offenses

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the Appellants were charged with informations of robbery and convicted of grand larceny. Since the informations contained no allegation of the value of the stolen property, the court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for entry of judgments of petit larceny only.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said during the trial of the case, the evidence showed that the value of the property taken was over $100. The judge instructed the jury on robbery and the lesser included offenses of grand larceny and petit larceny. Immediately after the jury retired, the appellants objected to the charge of grand larceny.

In the case of Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 377, lesser offenses were divided into four categories:

Published on: October 23, 2012

Court Rules on Heroin Possession Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

In this drug offense case, defendant was found in his apartment with 6¼ grams of heroin about twenty to thirty minutes after a package containing 13 grams of heroin was delivered by mail to his apartment. Customs and postal inspectors had discovered the heroin in the package when it had arrived in the country at San Francisco. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the package was mailed from Thailand and addressed to defendant’s residence in Daytona Beach, Florida. The postal authorities arranged a controlled delivery of the package to defendant’s residence.

A Jacksonville Heroin Possession Lawyer said that, about twenty to thirty minutes after this controlled delivery had taken place, four officials, one a postal inspector, and another a customs agent, and the other two, Daytona Beach police detectives, entered defendant’s apartment under a valid search warrant. They found defendant in a bedroom with 6¼ grams of heroin on a coffee table in front of him. They conducted a search to find the remaining heroin. During this search, they found thirty packets of heroin, each wrapped in aluminum foil and containing a mixture which included approximately one milligram of heroin, in a drawer of a dresser in a bedroom across the hall from the room where defendant had been found. It was established at trial that these “dime bags” small packets wrapped in aluminum foil containing about one milligram of heroin are commonly used in passing heroin on the streets. The authorities also found some butts of marijuana cigarettes in the same bedroom drawer. While the authorities were searching the apartment, defendant remarked to them, referring to the thirty “dime bags”, “I bet you didn’t think I could package it up that quick”.

A Jacksonville Intent to Distribute Lawyer said that, the indictment charged possession with intent to distribute only the 6¼ grams found on the coffee table. The Government relied upon the 30 “dime bags” to prove that defendant had the requisite intent to distribute. Its theory was that the heroin found in packages suitable for street distribution indicated that defendant was a dealer in heroin; that he had received the 13-gram package delivered in the mail for the purpose of selling or distributing most or all of the 13-gram quantity; and that he therefore intended to distribute the 6¼ gram quantity found on the coffee table.