This is a case being heard in the Criminal Term of the Queens County Supreme Court of the State of New York. The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Andre D. Miller. Judge David Goldstein is overseeing the case.
The issue at hand is whether or not the loss of a rape kit, either by the police or a hospital, requires a sanction to be imposed.
Case Background
The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs of the case. The defendant in the matter is Joon Ho Chin. The case is being heard by Judge Randall T. Eng.
The defendant is using the doctrine for collateral estoppel in this particular case. The defendant, Joon Ho Chin, moves to preclude the plaintiff, the People of the State of New York, from introducing evidence that he used physical force in the alleged rape against the complainant of the case.
Case History
The plaintiff for this case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant of the case is Marcus Wiggins. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Bronx County. Judge Dominic R. Massaro is presiding over the case.
The issue in front of the court is what risk level the defendant should be assessed at. The defendant pled guilty to attempted sexual abuse (sex crimes) in the first degree. The People in accordance with the Sexual Offenders Registration Act and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders state that the defendant Marcus Wiggins should be designated as a Sexually Violent Offender, Risk Level 2, when he is released. The defendant argues that this designation is incorrect. He states that 25 points were wrongfully added to his assessment for engaging in sexual intercourse, aggravated sexual abuse, or deviate sexual intercourse with the victim. The defendant states that he was convicted of an attempt and for this reason is not guilty of any of the above.
Case Facts
The respondent in this case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant in the case is Carl Smith. The People of the State of New York are represented Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Kew Gardens office with Gary Fidel for counsel. The appellant is represented by the offices of Hyman J. Greenberg, Forest Hills, with Joseph DiBlasi for counsel. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, Appellate Division. The judges hearing the case are Bracken, J.P., Ritter, O’Brien, and Copertino, JJ.
This is a case for appeal by the defendant. The original order was made in the Supreme Court of Queens County on the second of January, 1990. Judge Beerman made the original order. The defendant was convicted of sodomy in the first degree, rape in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child upon a verdict by a jury and the imposing sentence.
Case Background
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
Queens Rape 12
The People of the State of New York are the appellants in this case. The respondent of the case is Jay Jomar Bradshaw. The case is being heard in the Court of Appeals in New York.
Case Summary
The petitioner of the case is the State of New York. The respondent of the case is P.H. This case is being heard by Judge Daniel P. Conviser.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent, P.H., is a sex offender and this case involves the civil management petition that has been filed, pursuant to the mental hygiene law. A hearing was conducted on the 22nd of September, 2008 to determine whether or not probable cause existed in the case to believe the respondent was in need of civil management as set by the Mental Hygiene Law section 10.06.
The petitioner called one witness during the hearing, Dr. Erika Frances. The court determined her testimony to be credible in the matter. There were no witnesses called by the respondent of the case.
This case involves the accounting done by Dennis Gleason as the acting Executor of the Estate of Dianne Edwards who is deceased. The case is being presented in the Surrogate Court of Suffolk County.
This is a motion to dismiss the objections that have been filed in regard to the account of the estate fiduciary and a cross motion by the objectant for a summary judgment to be granted to dismiss the complaint.
Case Background
Prior to 1974, a rape conviction was not able to be obtained on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. In order to corroborate a testimony, the victim would have to be able to produce an eye witness or some other type of physical evidence. Prior to 1974, there was no such thing as DNA evidence. The ability to obtain a conviction on rape would be almost impossible. There is rarely an eyewitness to testify on behalf of a rape victim.
In fact, in 1967, rape was a misdemeanor offense. Rape in the present day is considered a felony offense. Attitudes have changed dramatically concerning sexual offenses. It seems incomprehensible in the present day that a rape conviction would require an eye witness or other physical evidence in order to get a conviction. However, even in 1967, some prosecutors were aware that the legislature needed to create changes in the laws to make them equitable to societal attitudes of the time. In fact, in one rape case the defendant was charged with assault in the second degree with the intent to rape and assault in the third degree. The defendant testified that he had completed the rape. The reason that he chose to testify to the completed rape was because a completed rape required eye witness testimony or other corroborating evidence. The offense of attempted rape or assault with the intent to rape, did not require the addition of corroborating evidence.
The defendant appealed the conviction because he contended that the prosecution was attempting to circumvent the requirement of corroborating evidence in rape cases by charging a crime that does not require corroboration. The court reviewed the case and determined that the fact that a prosecutor could conceivably circumvent the requirement of corroboration by charging a lesser included offense would result in a sentence that is greater for the lesser offense than it was for the completion of the rape.
On March 25, 1991 The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department in New York heard an appeal on a case of murder associated with an attempted rape. The elements of the offense are seemingly so bizarre as to warrant mention. The offender was originally convicted on May 10, 1984, with second degree murder, manslaughter in the second degree, and attempted rape in the first degree.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said he offender in this case stated that he knew the victim because he spent a good deal of time at her parents’ house. He fantasized about the victim repeatedly and became obsessed with the idea of having sex with her. Since, he knew that she would never allow him to have sex with her, he fantasized about raping her. He devised a plan to attack her and force her to have sex with him. He waited in her family home for her to come home and get into the shower. He went up the stairs and hid outside the master bedroom. He picked up a shillelagh, which is a type of knuckled walking stick. When she came out of the shower, he hit her on the head with the shillelagh. However, rather than forcing himself upon her, he became overwhelmed with the act of clubbing her. Her clubbed her repeatedly as she lay on the floor of her parents’ bedroom. He beat her until she was unconscious and covered with blood. He confessed in court to his crime.
He described to the court and the jury that he had intended to rape the victim, but once she was battered and covered with blood, he stopped. The offender filed an appeal with the Supreme court to overturn his verdict of guild to the attempted rape because the code section states that the man would be guilty of rape in the first degree if he had sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion. In order to attempt to rape, he would have had to attempt some action that would tend to further the commission of the rape. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the offender states that once he began to club the victim, he changed his mind about raping her and that none of his actions were in the effect of a rape. He contends that since the murder itself became the offense that any offense that is connected with rape should be overturned because there were no actions taken in the furtherance of that crime.
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog