Sex Crimes

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Discusses Temporary Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant and complainant are husband and wife. Immediately prior to his arrest, defendant and his wife were staying in separate cooperative apartments, each jointly owned by them, in the same apartment building in Manhattan. The larger of the two apartments was the couple’s marital home, while the smaller served as the wife’s office.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that as a consequence of severe marital conflict between them, the wife was temporarily sleeping in her office, but had access to the larger apartment during the day. The defendant husband continued to occupy and sleep in the larger apartment.

On 24 June 1988, defendant was arrested and charged with Assault in the Third Degree and with Harassment, on the complaint of his wife; defendant, with intent to cause physical injury and to harass and annoy his wife, had punched her in the face and knocked out one of her teeth. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the alleged assault and harassment occurred after the wife had returned to sleep in the larger apartment and refused to let the husband in.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Defendants Allege Lack of Jurisdiction in Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Two women were working at a taco restaurant. Two men came in and held up the restaurant. At gunpoint, the two men took the two women employees to their car in the parking lot. They made the women ride in their car. They drove them to a dead end road in the next county and there they raped and sexually abused the two women.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that even while in the car, while they were still on the road going to the next county, one of the men pointed the gun in his possession at the women and fondled their breasts.

They were charged and convicted of robbery in the first degree, two counts of rape in the first degree, two counts of kidnapping in the second degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Police Officer Charged with Domestic Violence

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence is a big problem in the world today. It is an even greater problem when it involves the very police officers who are impressed with the responsibility to protect the citizens from these crimes. In the face of this issue, many states have enacted reporting guidelines that affect police officers in domestic violence situations personally.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said any peace officer who engages in any act of domestic violence will lose their certification as a police officer. It will end their careers. It is because of this that most police officers are very careful to not engage in any act that could be perceived as an act of domestic violence.

In March 1998, a ten-year veteran police officer was admitted to a psychiatric hospital suffering from depression and suicidal ideation. She was out of work for several months and then returned to light-duty. Light duty relieves the officer of the expectation of carrying a weapon. She remained on light duty until September of 2001. After that, she was unable to return to work at all. In 2003, she requested that the police department allow her to retire under full duty disability retirement benefits. She stated that she was permanently disabled due to post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. The judge denied her request. She then filed an appeal requesting a hearing and a redetermination of the essence of her case. A hearing was held and the Hearing Officer upheld the denial of retirement benefits. She filed another appeal.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Defendant Contends that Key Evidence Proving his Innocence wasnt Allowed

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 10, 1987, a man was convicted of burglary in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, tampering with a witness in the third degree, criminal trespass in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, possession of burglary tools and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he immediately filed an appeal requesting that his conviction be reversed.

He contends that the trial court committed an error when they refused to allow the defendant to present evidence that he felt was exculpatory to his case. His contention was that his ex-girlfriend, who testified against him was not a reliable witness. He stated that although in trial, she had testified that she was no longer using drugs, that was a lie. He contends that at the time of the trial, she was still using drugs and that the needle marks on her arms were proof of that fact. He states that her testimony that she witnessed the burglary and then he threatened her if she ever told on him was not trustworthy because of her addiction. He further maintained that criminal trespass is a lesser included offense to the felony offense of burglary. He stated that since it is a lesser included offense, that he should not have received a sentence on it separate from the burglary. On this one contention, the justices agreed and reversed his conviction for criminal trespass.

As far as intimidating a witness, the facts of this count of his conviction are uncontested. Directly after committing the offense, the man threatened her about telling anyone what he had done. He intimated that she would encounter violence if she ever told anyone about the burglary. The defendant contends that this threat does not constitute intimidation of a witness because she was not a witness against him at the time. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the offense had occurred after his arrest, then he would have been guilty of attempting to influence a witness. Since it did not occur after the arrest, but before it, he was not intimidating a witness. The justices agree. This count of the charges are overturned and vacated.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Court Discusses Judicial Diversion Program

by Stephen Bilkis

The Drug Reform act of 2009 was created as an effort to divert drug addicts and alcoholics who’s crimes are committed due to their addiction, from the criminal courts and into a treatment facility where they can shed their addiction. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that unfortunately, the temptation of judicial diversion means that many people attempt to take advantage of the system to reduce the time that they will be incarcerated. On such case, a subject had managed to maintain a 20-year career of felony drug crimes. In July of 2009, the subject made a motion to the court to divert his two outstanding drug sales cases to provide him the opportunity to enroll in a long-term residential drug treatment program.

The defendant alleges that even though he has been arrested several times for dealing drugs and for drug crimes in school zones, that he would benefit from a drug treatment program. One evaluator agreed with him, but it was later discovered that he had not mentioned to her that he has never tested positive for alcohol or drugs at the time of any arrest. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he stated that the reason he never had drugs in his system at the time of his arrests was because he was only a “sporadic” user of cocaine.

The state contends that each time the subject was arrested, he was arrested for sale of drugs and not for mere possession or intoxication. The details of his arrests and incarceration reveal the picture of a man who deals drugs for a living. The Drug Rehabilitation Act is aimed at being an intervention program to divert addicts and those who deal only to support their own habit. In this case, even though the defendant claims that he has a drug addiction, the evidence does not support this claim.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Appeal Looks at Defendant’s Special Condition of Parole

by Stephen Bilkis

The Supreme Court modified a special condition of a man’s parole. The said condition forbade him from having any contact with his wife without the permission of his parole officer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the modified order permitted the man to see his wife during non-curfew hours so long as the wife wished to see him.

On recent years, the man was released on parole subject to seventeen special conditions where he agreed to abide by a curfew established by his parole officer and agreed that he will not associate in any way or communicate by any means with his wife without the permission of the parole officer. While denying the man’s application to vacate the curfew and to allow him to live with his wife, the Supreme Court held that although the condition was not itself a violation of the man’s constitutional rights, it was subjective to deny the man’s visitation during non-curfew hours as long as the wife consented to it. In the ruling, the court noted the wife’s desire to see her husband. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man’s rape conviction occurred before and none of his domestic violence related arrests resulted in convictions. The court finds that the Supreme Court improperly substituted its judgment for that of state division of parole.

Based on records, the imposition of a special condition is discretionary in nature and ordinarily beyond legal review as long as it is made in accordance with law and no positive legal requirement is violated. If the condition is rationally related to the inmate’s past conduct and future chances of recidivism, the Supreme Court has no authority to substitute its own preference for that of the individuals in charge of designing the terms of a man’s parole release. Further, because there is no federal or state constitutional right to be released to parole supervision before serving a full sentence, the state has responsibility to place restrictions on parole release.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Decides Divorce in Light of Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

A Jewish couple married in August 1973. At that time, the husband was 22 and the wife was 18. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the husband was in dental school and wife chose to keep house until after the husband finished his dental studies. When the husband became a dentist and had established a dental practice, it was the wife who took care of all the details of the practice including the hiring and firing of his employees.

The wife was able to finish four college degrees during the pendency of her marriage and had taken a licensure examination as a social worker. The wife also set up a foundation that aimed to help Jewish women who were victims of domestic violence get a Jewish divorce.

The couple had four children. At the time of the divorce proceeding in 2004, the two older children were already adults and married with children of their own. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the third child was 20 years old but still in college and was dependent upon the support of his parents. The youngest child was 13 years old.

Published on: April 24, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction of IDV Courts

by Stephen Bilkis

The Court transferred into the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Part a case alleging criminal contempt of court filed against a woman and a family offense case that the woman filed against the complaining witness. On joint application of the Court and the accused, the Court also transferred a subsequently filed criminal case against the woman into the IDV Part. The Court’s application to consolidate the two cases for trial was granted. The family offense case that the woman filed against the complaining witness was dismissed for lack of proper service on an incapacitated person. The woman moves to send her consolidated cases back to Criminal Court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman argues that an Indictment or Superior Court Information is needed to allow misdemeanor cases to be prosecuted in the Supreme Court. The State Court of Appeals has recently rejected the argument and has upheld the authority of the IDV Courts to preside over misdemeanor cases such as the cases.

The woman also argues that upon the dismissal of her family offense petition for lack of service, the criminal cases must be transferred back to the Criminal Court. The woman cites no authority for the proposition and the Court is aware of none.

Published on: April 24, 2012

Respondent Violates Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 15 March 199, petitioner spouse filed a supplemental petition has been, a Family Offense Proceeding, alleging that respondent failed to obey the modified order of protection issued by the court dated 15 November 1993; that respondent on 8 March 1994, upon release from incarceration for prior violation of the order of protection, arrived at petitioner’s residence with police at approximately 1:00 a.m. attempting to gain entry to petitioner’s residence and subsequently on 11 March 1994 that “a car belonging to a friend was towed from petitioner’s driveway, and petitioner thinking the car stolen filed a police report and later learned where the car was towed, and upon inquiring found respondent had filed a complaint and stated to be the owner of the property and claimed that the car was illegally parked and had the car towed where the towing company is demanding payment for towing and storage fees.”

A warrant was issued for respondent’s arrest. Respondent was returned on the warrant on 21 March 1994. In April 1994, a hearing was held and at the conclusion thereof, the court made two findings beyond a reasonable doubt, to wit (1) that on 8 March 1994, respondent willfully violated the final order of protection by attempting to gain entry to petitioner’s residence and (2) that on 11 March 1994, respondent willfully violated the final order of protection by having a vehicle lawfully parked on petitioner’s property towed from that property with false representations by respondent that he was the owner of the property, that the car was unlawfully parked, all to harass and annoy the petitioner. The court’s decision was based on the prior history of family offense activity perpetrated upon petitioner by respondent; the fact that respondent had been committed previously by a court in Nassau County to incarceration for one hundred and eighty days; that respondent apart from that commitment, had been civilly committed by this court for willful violation of the order of protection to incarceration for six months; that respondent upon release from this most recent commitment had almost simultaneously violated the order of protection again on 8 March 1994; that respondent’s behavior indicated an intractable design to continue to annoy and harass petitioner; and considering the welfare not only of petitioner, but of the two children, the court determined to civilly commit the respondent for each of the two willful violation to a term of incarceration of six months for the finding of violation occurring on 8 March 1994 and of four months for the finding of violation occurring on 11 March 1994, to run consecutively.

On 12 April 1994, respondent filed a motion returnable 27 April 1994 seeking re-argument of the dispositional order dated 7 April 1994.

Published on: April 24, 2012

Court Discusses Hand Gun Licensing

by Stephen Bilkis

On 21 August 2006, petitioner applied for a premises residence handgun license. In the application, petitioner conceded that he had been arrested, and attached a copy of his plea agreement and a notarized explanation regarding the circumstances underlying the arrest.

On 20 March 2007, respondent as the Statutorily Designated Handgun Licensing Officer and as the Police Commissioner of the City of New York advised petitioner that the application had been disapproved for the following reasons: was issued a summons for disorderly conduct; was issued a traffic ticket for improper cell phone use; was arrested for speeding and driving with a suspended license; license was suspended as a result of receiving 3 speeding tickets within an 18 month period. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the said circumstances cast grave doubt on the petitioner’s moral character in obeying the rules and regulations of a government agency.

Petitioner timely appealed the disapproval to the Director of the License Division but was denied. It found that petitioner’s: arrest history, history of moving violations and the history of domestic violence incidents made him an unacceptable candidate for a handgun license.