Sex Crimes

Published on: November 2, 2012

Defendant Claims Court Erred in Not Allowing Key Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents and Zachary R. Gibian is the appellant in this case being held in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department. The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that was issued on the 17th of January, 2007 and convicted him of murder in the second degree.

Defendant’s Argument

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant identifies three grounds for this appeal to reverse his conviction. The first is for the preclusion on the grounds of hearsay of the statements that were made by the defendant’s mother. The second is juror misconduct during deliberations. The third is the summary curtailment of the closing statement made by the defense counsel.

Published on: November 1, 2012

Plaintiffs Sue Author for Publishing Defamatory Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the respondent D.R. and the appellants. The case is being heard in the Court of Appeals of New York. The action is for defamation as the plaintiff is a Justice of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial District. He alleges that he was libeled in the book “Cruel and Unusual Justice” that was authored by the defendants. The defendants motioned for summary judgment in the case after extensive pretrial discovery. The motion was denied by Special Term. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision in a closely divided court. The defendants were granted leave to appeal to our court on a certified question.

Court Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the question before the court is whether the plaintiff has established the existence of material facts that are sufficient to create a triable issue for his libel cause of action.

Published on: October 31, 2012

Defendant Claims Grounds for Indictment are Insufficient

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Suffolk County Court. The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant K.M. The defendant has been accused of acting in concert with another in commission of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. K.M.has moved for the charges against him to be dismissed on the account that the indictment is defective and that it was not found on legally sufficient evidence.

Defendant’s Argument

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant argues that the indictment is deficient as it fails to conform to CPL section 200.30, subdivision 7. This section requires that a plain and concise factual statement of each count must be made. It further states that the defendant must be clearly apprised as to the matter of the accusation that is made against him.

Published on: October 31, 2012

Court Decides Possible Acquittal by Reason of Mental Disease

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a matter of a recommitment proceeding in relation to Criminal Procedure Law in relationship to the respondent Francis S. The petitioners and appellants in this case are the District Attorney of New York County and the Commissioner for the New York State Office of Mental Health.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the main issue before the court is whether an acquittal by reason of mental disease or defect of a person who has repeatedly violated the order of conditions that he gained upon release and who is still mentally ill, a poly substance abuser, given to acts of violence and still found to be not suffering from a dangerous mental disorder is appropriate.

Case Background

Published on: October 30, 2012

Court Rules on Probation Violation

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents of this case. S.H. is the appellant. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department. The defendant is appealing an amended judgment from the County Court of Suffolk County that revoked a sentence of probation that had been previously imposed by the same court.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary in the third degree on the 12th of March, 2003. He was sentenced by the County Court to a term of six months in the Suffolk County Correctional Facility. This was to be followed by five years of probation. There were terms set for his probation that included that he report as directed to his probation officer, submit to drug testing, and make reparations in the amount of $1000 plus a 5% surcharge to be paid to the Probation Department of Suffolk County.

Published on: October 30, 2012

Defendant Moves to Suppress Identification Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is M.B. He has made an omnibus motion requesting several forms of relief. The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in the case. The County Court of the City of New York in Suffolk County is hearing the case.

Case Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s omnibus motion has requested discovery pursuant to CPL 240.20. The People have answered that they have provided their entire discovery to the defense. The defendant has not submitted a reply to contest the sufficiency of the answer that was provided by the People. For this reason, it seems that the request has been complied with.

Published on: October 29, 2012

Court Determines if Evidence of Previous Crimes Can be Admitted

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case. Peter Wayne Orth is the appellant. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that was rendered on the 8th of March, 1977. The judgment convicted the defendant of robbery in the first degree upon a jury verdict. The defendant has two other orders from the same court, one from the 15th of October 1979 and the other from the 5th of January, 1982, both denying the motion for the judgment of conviction to be vacated and the indictment dismissed.

Case Background

The defendant has been convicted of a robbery that took place at a drugstore in Babylon. During the course of the robbery both drugs and money were stolen.

Published on: October 29, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of the People of the State of New York versus the defendant, G.R. The case is being heard in the Criminal Court of the City of New York in Bronx County. The defendant has moved to set aside the sentence that has been imposed on him. He basis his argument for this motion on the ground that the sentence was unauthorized, illegally imposed, or otherwise invalid as a matter of the law.

Court Discussion

The instant case at hand deals with the Mental Hygiene Law. This law was originally enacted in April of 1966. The purpose of this law was to provide a comprehensive plan that covers the care, treatment, and rehabilitation of narcotic addicts.

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 28, 2012

Defendant Claims Rights Were Violated in Search

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case before the Justice Court of the City of New York in Nassau County. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York.

Case Background

There was reason to believe that the defendants were living in a home that was over occupied. An affidavit was submitted to support the warrant. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the affidavit it was shown that there was reason to believe that up to 25 people were currently living in different areas of the premises. This is a violation of the rental code and there had been several complaints regarding the premises.