Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

The criminal defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of sex abuse in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, both charges arising out of a single incident that allegedly occurred when the defendant took the complaining witness to see a movie.

As a preliminary matter, the County court reject the argument that the pertinent claims of prosecutorial misconduct are not preserved for appellate review. Under the particular circumstances, the defense counsel’s general objections to the prosecutor’s comments, and subsequent motion for a mistrial, preserved the claims.

With respect to the merits of the defendant’s claims, while the prosecutor has wide latitude to comment upon every pertinent matter of fact bearing upon the questions the jury have to decide, such latitude does not permit an unbridled debate in which the restraints imposed at trial are cast aside so that counsel may employ all rhetorical devices at his command. There are certain well-defined limits. Moreover, the fundamental obligation of a prosecutor is to seek justice, and not merely obtain a conviction.

Continue reading

A Queens Sex Crime Lawyer said that, on August 19, 2008, plaintiffs jointly commenced the instant action by filing a summons and complaint with the King’s County Clerk’s office under index number 23739/08. The defendants joined issue by answer dated September 8, 2008. On August 20, 2008, the other plaintiff commenced her own separate action by filing a summons and verified complaint with the Nassau County Clerk’s office under index number 11424/2009. The defendants joined issue by verified answer dated September 4, 2008. On April 21, 2009, the two complaints were consolidated for joint trial in Kings County Supreme Court.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, the first action alleges forty-six allegations of fact in support of three causes of action. Their first two causes of action claim violations of Executive Law 296(1): the first for sex harassment by the creation of a hostile work environment; and the second for constructive discharge. The third cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. All plaintiffs in the first action seek summary judgment on liability on the entire complaint. With the exception of plaintiff the complaint alleges that each plaintiff worked at MCPC up until June 13, 2008, when they discovered that defendant had installed and used a hidden camera in the only working restroom.

A Queens Sex Crime Lawyer said that, the second complaint alleges thirty-eight allegations of fact in support of five causes of action. The first two causes of action claim violations of Executive Law Section 296(1): the first for sexual harassment by the creation of a hostile work environment; and the second for intentional discrimination and constructive discharge. The third cause of action is for violation of the right to privacy. The fourth cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The fifth is for prima facie tort. The second action seeks summary judgment on liability on the first, second and fourth causes of action.

Continue reading

These are appeals from an amended order of the Family Court of Columbia County entered 3 December 2009, which, in proceeding No. 1 pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 6, clarified a prior order of custody and from an order of said court, entered 3 May 2010, which dismissed petitioner’s application in proceeding No. 2 pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 6 to modify a prior order of custody.

The petitioner, the father, has a daughter born in 1995 to respondent KR and a son born in 1999 to respondent LB. In July 2009, the father separately petitioned to modify prior visitation orders entered on consent as to each child. After a combined hearing, Family Court granted a motion by the attorney for the daughter to dismiss the petition as to her for failure to allege a sufficient change in circumstances. The father withdrew his petition at the hearing and the court issued an amended order. The father now appeals from both orders.

During the hearing, it was established that the 42 year old petitioner criminal father is a convicted sex offender. Petitioner pleaded guilty in 1990 when he was aged 22 to sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl. Again, he pleaded guilty in 2000 when he was aged 32 for statutory rape of a 16-year-old girl

Continue reading

This proceeding involves an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County rendered 17 June 2002 convicting him of rape in first degree, sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts) and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

The court affirms the judgment.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of his motion which was to compel the complainant to submit to a psychiatric examination by a defense expert. It is well settled that a criminal defendant has no statutory or constitutional right to compel a complainant to undergo a pretrial psychological examination as ruled in the landmark cases of Matter of Brown v Blumenfeld and People v Kemp. While a court may possess the discretion to permit such an examination under appropriate circumstances, the defendant failed to demonstrate that such circumstances were present here akin to the cases of People v Earel and Peole v Jones.

Continue reading

Claimant ABA was wrongfully convicted on charges that he sexually abused his four-year-old daughter, including rape and sodomy. He was imprisoned for over two years—783 days—on multiple concurrent sentences, the longest of which was for 8 1/3 to 25 years, primarily in maximum security prisons, before his conviction was reversed on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct.

As prosecutors prepared to re-try ABA, it was confirmed that the only witness who had presented evidence of such abuse had lied and, in fact, that there was no credible evidence his daughter ever had been molested. The sex indictment against claimant then was dismissed. He subsequently commenced this action for unjust conviction pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8-b.

Defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and claimant cross-moved for summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, granted claimant’s motion for summary judgment, reversing the trial court and finding the State liable. This was the first time in the history of the unjust conviction statute since it was enacted in 1984 that the Appellate Division, on a motion record, found that claimant had satisfied all requirements of section 8-b—including, of course, his innocence—by clear and convincing evidence without defendant having raised an issue of fact warranting a liability trial. That this appellate court finding was made in a case that did not involve DNA evidence is all the more remarkable. The Appellate Division’s observations pertaining to liability bear repetition as this court turns to the issue of damages here:

Continue reading

A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, the defendant was charged by a felony complaint with Rape in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 130.30) and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (PL § 260.10(1)). Pursuant to a plea bargain, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Attempted Rape in the Third Degree (PL § 110/130.25) and was sentenced to six months in jail. As required by the Sex Offender Registration Act (Art. 6-C of the Correction Law), the Board of Sex Examiners submitted a Risk Assessment Instrument finding that the defendant was at level 2 or at a moderate risk of reoffending. The defendant challenges that finding.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, in the felony complaint, a detective who signed the document alleged that he was informed by the 12-year-old complainant, inter alia, that the 39-year-old defendant had sexual intercourse with her between April 1st and April 15th, 1997, laying on top of her in her bed and holding her down with his body. Additionally, he told her that if she told anyone what he had done, he would kill her. The complaint also alleged that on several occasions ending in mid-April, 1997, he sexually abused the complainant by repeatedly placing his finger in her vagina and on her breasts.

A Queens Sex Crime Lawyer said that, on August 12, 1997, the defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of Attempted Rape in the Third Degree (PL § 110/130.25), an A misdemeanor, and allocated to one incident of sexual intercourse with the complainant. There was no provision in the plea agreement that the defendant submit to any treatment or therapy. Prior to sentence, he was interviewed by a representative of the Department of Probation, during which interview he admitted to having “sex with his 12 year old niece. He stated that he feels terrible about what he has done. He further stated that it should never have happened.”

This is a proceeding wherein the petitioner seeks leave pursuant to article 6 of the Civil Rights Law to change her surname to that of her same-sex life partner. Her partner has consented to the application before a notary public. The court’s research does not reveal any published New York cases directly on point.

However, the court grants the petition.

Under the common law, a person can simply assume any name, absent fraud or an interference with the rights of others as held in Matter of Anonymous. Article 6 of the Civil Rights Law provides a formal procedure for changing a name, which provides the advantages of being speedy, definite and a matter of record as was done in Smith v United States. Article 6 allows both adults and infants to petition to change their names, the latter generally through a parent or guardian in accordance to Civil Rights Law § 60.

Continue reading

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant has applied for an order granting him ‘permission to inspect the minutes of the Grand Jury, or, in the alternative dismissing’ a three-count indictment accusing him, and a co-defendant, of (1) Assault, 2d Degree, committed July 17, 1965, ‘by willfully and wrongfully using a knife against’ the throat of a named female, ‘that being an instrument or thing likely to produce grievous bodily harm’; (2) Assault, 2d Degree, committed July 17, 1965 ‘by use of their clenched fists’ upon said female ‘thereby willfully and wrongfully wounding and inflicting upon her grievous bodily harm, to wit: Multiple bruises of the face and body’; and (3) Felonious Possession of a Dangerous Weapon, i. e., a dangerous knife, on July 17, 1965, with intent to use it unlawfully against another.

A Queens Sex Crime Lawyer said that, the basis of the motion is that ‘there was no testimony before the grand jury, or evidence, sufficient as a matter of law, to warrant a finding of the indictment’. The predicate for this conclusion is that since the criminal acts here charged were committed prior, but as direct steps leading, to the rape testified to by the prosecutor the indictment lacks a sufficient evidentiary foundation in view of the fact that no corroboratory proof of the rape was submitted to the grand jury.

A Queens Sex Crime Lawyer said that, the facts disclosed by the grand jury minutes are that the victim of the assaults was forcibly abducted in an automobile by two male persons–later identified by her as these defendants–and, while being carried away in the car, was given a choice of either participating in sodomy or submitting to rape, but refused either alternative. After having been ‘slapped around’ and frustrated in an attempt to escape, she was raped by each defendant, in turn, while the other held a knife-point to her throat and threatened to cut her if she didn’t stop screaming. Nevertheless, she resisted, but in vain. She was not examined by a doctor until August 10, 1965, and the police were not notified until August 12, 1965. She made no immediate disclosure to her parents although, within a day or two after the event, she told a neighbor about it. Other than her own testimony there is no evidence that she was abducted by anyone, or that she was in the company of these defendants on the occasion in question or that at or about the time of the occurrences narrated by her, she bore visible marks of recent physical violence or ravishment. When apprehended and questioned, the defendants denied having been in the girl’s company on the evening in question and specifically denied the charges made. There was no evidence that any knife was found or that either of the defendants had been known to possess one.

Continue reading

This is a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3 wherein the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County dated 6 October 1999, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated 8 September 1999, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal nuisance in the second degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated 8 September 1999.

The court reverses the order of disposition, on the law, without costs or disbursements, vacates the fact-finding order, and dismisses the proceeding.

On 24 June 1999 at about 11:30 P.M., the 14-year-old appellant was observed at an intersection in Queens known to police as a prostitution location. The appellant flagged down four cars within a period of approximately 10 minutes. Each time a car stopped, the appellant walked to the driver’s side and had a conversation with the driver lasting 30 seconds to a minute.

Continue reading

This is a proceeding wherein the defendant, AS, seeks to vacate the second felony offender adjudication and the accompanying sentence, both from 12 October 2005 pursuant to C.P.L. 440.20 of this court dated 19 May 2010. The court denied defendant’s motion. The defense has filed a motion to re-argue and to set aside the sentence under C.P.L. § 440.20 and a petition for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 via an affirmation filed on about 28 May 2010. The People filed a response on 15 June 2010. In addition, extensive oral argument was heard on 30 June 2010. The defense also submitted a letter brief on 1 July 2010.

For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion to set aside the sentence and vacates its original decision.

On 21 March 2002, in the Third Circuit Court of Detroit, Michigan, the defendant, AS, was sentenced to two years probation following his plea of guilty to attempted home invasion in the first degree in accordance with Michigan Criminal Law 750.110(a)(2). Defendant was subsequently sentenced to 180 days in jail on 23 February 2004 by the Third Circuit Court of Wayne, Michigan, for violation of probation.

Continue reading