Sex Crimes

Published on: July 1, 2012

Defendant Claims Insufficient Evidence for an Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the plaintiffs, the People of the State of New York versus the defendant, Edward Cicciari. The case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court of the state of New York in Queens County.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the counsel for the defendant is seeking an inspection of the minutes presented to the Grand Jury that resulted in the defendant being indicted for first degree rape, first degree sodomy, first degree burglary, aggravated sexual abuse, attempted burglary, criminal mischief, and resisting arrest.

The defendant is seeking that a number of counts on the indictment be dismissed based on the fact that the indictment was not founded on competent and sufficient legal evidence.

Published on: June 30, 2012

Supreme Court Discusses Date Rape

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 18, 1992, The Supreme Court for New York County, New York, discussed the application of punitive damages in civil suits against criminally convicted perpetrators would be appropriate in rape cases. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case in question granted $10,000,000.00 in damages to the victim of a sexual assault in 1988. Her attacker was charged and convicted of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse. The victim subsequently filed a civil suit to recover damages. The victim was a fashion model who relied on her unblemished physical beauty for her source of income. During the course of the rape, her attacker had slashed her with a knife. The slashing made it impossible for her to continue gainful employment as a model.

The 1991 amendment to the Civil Rights Law § 50-b demands that all victims of sex offenses regardless of their age be protected from having their identities disclosed to the public. The reason that rape victims identities require protection from disclosure is associated with the societal stigma that is placed on victims of sexual assault in general. This is especially true in the case of date rape. Date rape which is sometimes called acquaintance rape, is the most common form of rape in this country. Most cases of date rape go unreported. Prior to 1974, a rape victim had to have corroboration in the form of an eye witness or physical evidence to substantiate her claim of rape. That created an atmosphere of danger for any woman who was alone with a man. The court recognizes that date rape is a crime so old that it is recorded in the bible. For many years, if a woman willingly went to a man’s apartment or bedroom, the general opinion was that she knew that she would be expected to have sex with that man. If she then told him that she did not want to have sex with him and he forced her to have sex, society had the view that she had asked for it. She was considered to have known what she was getting into when she agreed to be alone with a man in an area that “good” girls did not go.

In 1988, mainly as a result of a book about it, date rape was put into the spot light. Many women reported during a comprehensive study to have suffered from forced sexual intercourse by dates. In fact, a staggering 20% of college students reported in 1985 that a date had forced them to have sexual intercourse against their will at least once. Many women did not even call forced sex on a date, rape. The FBI estimated that in 1988 60 to 80% of the women who were raped, were raped while on a date with their attacker. It was not until 1991, when the Violence Against Women Act was proposed that these issues were brought to the forefront of criticism in American public view. These proposed laws would make federal penalties available for rape prosecutions and require mandatory restitution to the victims.

Published on: June 30, 2012

Court Discusses Changes in Law for Rape Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: June 30, 2012

Court Looks at Defendant’s Intent in Rape Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: June 30, 2012

Court Discusses Rape Trauma Syndrome

by Stephen Bilkis

Offenses of rape and other sex crimes are clouded by myths that pervade most societies about the causes of rape. For many hundreds of years, the cause of rape was believed to be an overwhelming sexual desire. It has only been in recent years that American society has taken the view that rape is an act of violence against women. When it involves a child, the manner in which the assault affects the child can be even more confusing. One example of this type of confusion occurred in a case that happened in Brooklyn, New York in the early 1980’s.

An eleven year old girl often went to her neighbor’s apartment to play and babysit the neighbor’s smaller children. On one date when she was caring for the children, the neighbor’s boyfriend came home. He was alone with the children for several hours. The eleven year old girl later claimed that the boyfriend had raped her. The rape was not reported until two months later, when the girl told her mother that the boyfriend had come home early again. The second time, she stated that he had kissed her on the mouth and fondled her breasts and bottom. The mother immediately took the girl to the hospital and filed a police report. The doctor’s report substantiated that the girl’s hymen was ruptured. The police arrested the neighbor’s boyfriend for raping the girl.

In the months between the rape and the trial, the little girl was overwhelmed with the situation and wrote several letters to her accused attacker. These letters stated that she was sorry and that she knew that it was not rape. The prosecutor, upon learning of these letters and that the defense intended to use them to impeach the credibility of the child, filed a motion with the court to be allowed to introduce evidence on the effects of rape trauma syndrome. The defense objected to the introduction of this evidence because they claim that the average juror is capable of distinguishing the effects of rape for themselves.

Published on: June 30, 2012

Court Looks at Corroborating Evidence in Rape Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

In August 1971, a 14-year old girl lived in an apartment building. Their neighbor asked the girl to bring some music records from his apartment to his daughter-in law’s apartment. It was three o’clock on a summer afternoon and the 14 year old girl knew the man because he had been their neighbor for a long time.

The girl went inside the apartment of their neighbor. As soon as she entered, the neighbor grabbed the girl and he threw her down to the couch. The man held down the girl as he raped her.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said after the rape, the neighbor let the girl go. As she was standing up to leave, the man grabbed her by her arm forcefully and told her not to tell anyone what happened.

Published on: June 29, 2012

Court Discusses Issues of Discrimination and Equal Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Sometime in 1977, defendant-one was indicted for the crime of Rape in the Third Degree, a criminal law violation; that defendant, over twenty-one years of age, engaged in a sexual intercourse with a female less than seventeen years of age.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that sometime in March of 1978, defendant-two was under an eight count indictment; two counts of the indictment charged crimes of Rape in the First Degree; that defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with two females who were less than eleven years old.

Published on: June 29, 2012

Rape Charges Dismissed for Lack of Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The man was charged with kidnapping in the second degree, two counts of assault in the second degree, attempted rape in the first degree and attempted sexual abuse in the first degree. The man was also charged with similar counts previously involving another woman but was later dismissed.

Evidently, the only proof of the man’s alleged criminal acts was the testimony of the complainant, who first reported the incident to the police when the police came to interview her in connection with the reported attack on the other woman. The complainant specifically testified that one afternoon, she brought her three children to her neighbor’s apartment because she intended to go to a hospital to fill a prescription. On that event, the man was also there and volunteered to go downstairs to call a taxicab for her. It was about 4:15 P.M. or 4:30 P.M. when the complainant entered the taxicab. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man then suddenly climbed in behind her and told the driver to pull off and keep driving. The ride lasted more than 10 minutes and maybe about two hours. At the cab, the man told the complainant that she was going to pay for what everyone had done to him. When the complainant responded that she didn’t know what the man was talking about, the man kept repeating that she was paying for what had happened to him and she should shut up. The man then began to hit the complainant about her face with his fists. The man continually assaulted the complainant throughout the ride. At one point, the man struck her in the back of her head with a gun and stated that he would kill the complainant because she was paying for what everybody did to him.

Afterwards, the man also asked the taxicab driver if he wanted to watch him killing the complainant. At another point, the man told the complainant that if she told anyone about what happened in the taxicab he would kill her son. As darkness set in, the ride ended at a vacant parking lot and the complainant could not recall the lot’s exact location but estimated that it was about two miles from her home. At the parking lot, the man pulled the complainant out of the taxicab. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man again threatened to kill the complainant’s son if she screamed and he invited the taxicab driver to punch the complainant. The taxicab driver punched the complainant in her mouth with his fist. The man continually screamed at the complainant and again struck her in the back of her head with the gun. The man also punched the complainant in her stomach causing her to fall to the ground. As she passed into unconsciousness, the man told the complainant that he was going to rape her. The complainant woke up the next morning and the only clothes left on her was her shirt and socks. She had a lump on her head, her stomach and genitals felt sore, and her legs felt sore, wet and sticky. She found the rest of her clothes strewn about the parking lot.

Published on: June 29, 2012

Court Discusses Corroboration Element of Sex Offenses

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was arrested and charged with the offenses of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree and possession of a dangerous weapon. The offenses were allegedly committed recently after the arrest. In addition, the grand jury failed to indict the man for the rape and sodomy charges, on the ground that there was no corroboration of the complainant’s testimony as to the intercourse, but directed that information be filed on the weapons charge. The information on the possession of a dangerous weapons charge was then filed.

The man however moves to dismiss the information on the ground that the offense of possession of a dangerous weapon requires intent to use unlawfully and the only proof of unlawful intent would be the complainant’s testimony that she was raped. Since there can be no conviction for the allege offense due to lack of corroboration, the man contends that the testimony of the complainant cannot now be used to convict him of the weapons charge.

In order for the court to address itself to the man’s contention, a brief recapitulation of the legislative history of laws pertaining to corroboration is required. However, the court of appeals subsequently overruled the line of cases and held that convictions for the crimes of attempted rape, assault and other offenses related to the offense could not be sustained where the only evidence against the opponent was the uncorroborated testimony that a consummated rape had occurred. Moreover, the reasoning of the court of appeals in the various cases was that the only testimony implicating the man in the non-rape charges was testimony of an actual rape.

Published on: June 29, 2012

Court Orders New Trial in Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

An appeal was filed by three men on a decision charging them for the crimes of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and assault in the second degree.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the three men, as the appellants, made an offer of proof concerning the complaints of prior sexual conduct of the woman. The three men offered an affidavit from an 18-year-old college student. The college student stated that the complainant had performed fellatio on him, but that she would not let him touch her breasts. He also stated that various other males had told him of sexual relations had by them with the complainant. In a similar affidavit, another 18-year-old university student stated that he had sexual relations with the complainant on five other occasions and during the course of which the complainant had never permitted him to touch her exceptionally large breasts. The complainant also told the second witness that that she was sexually active. The second witness believed that the complainant was willing to have sex with anyone at any time. Lastly, on the affidavit of the former employer of the complainant, he stated that he too had sexual relations on approximately 12 occasions with the complainant and that she never allowed him to touch her breasts and had told him that she was sexually promiscuous.

After a hearing and a review of the various exhibits submitted by the appellants, the trial court ruled that some of the subdivisions were not applicable and that the evidence offered was not relevant and acceptable. Additionally, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual conduct was therefore disqualified at the trial. The appellants further assert that the penal law permits the trial court to prohibit the admission of relevant evidence in order to protect the privacy of the complaining witness. They contend that this prohibition violates their right to a fair trial.