Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

In July 2010, the Attorney General, filed a petition contending that Respondent is a detained sex offender who has a mental abnormality, as that term is defined in Article 10 of the New York State Mental Hygiene Law (“MHL” or “Article 10”), § 10.03, such that Respondent should be confined or supervised by the Office of Mental Health once his prison sentence is completed.

A Bronx County Criminal attorney said that, in July 1995, Respondent pled guilty to two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, PL 160.15(3), one count of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, and one count of Escape in the First Degree, each charged out of four separate dockets. Thereafter, Respondent was sentenced on those separate dockets to three indeterminate terms of incarceration in a New York State Correctional Facility from 8 to 16 years, and one indeterminate term of incarceration of 2 to 4 years, with all sentences to run concurrently.

Respondent, who was incarcerated had served almost 15 years of his concurrent sentences and was nearing the end of his term of imprisonment when the Attorney General filed the petition at issue in July 2010.

Continue reading

This is a proceeding wherein the defendant challenges a determination of the Supreme Court, Kings County, designating him a risk level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C, the Sex Offender Registration Act upon the Supreme Court’s denial of his application for a downward departure to risk level one.

The criminal court concludes that the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s application and affirms the risk level designation.

In a multiple-count indictment, the defendant was charged with committing various sex crimes against a single complainant between December 2005 and March 2006, when the ages of the defendant and the complainant were 27 and 14, respectively. On 3 November 2006, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted rape in the second degree under Penal Law §§ 110, 130.30[1], sexual intercourse between a defendant 18 or older and a complainant younger than 15]. On 6 December 2006, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 1/2 to 3 years.

Continue reading

The case involves a respondent named PH who is the subject of a sex offender civil management petition filed pursuant to article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law.

On 22 September 2008, a hearing was conducted to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that PH is a sex offender requiring civil management pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06 (k).

The petitioner called one witness, Dr. EF. While the court did not credit certain aspects of her testimony, her testimony in general was still found to be credible. The respondent did not call any witnesses.

Continue reading

In this criminal case, defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint and charged with assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, menacing in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree. The case was later adjourned for Grand Jury action.

A Kings County Criminal attorney said that the felony charge of assault in the second degree was dismissed leaving the misdemeanor charges pending. The People served and filed the supporting deposition converting the complaint into an information and declared their readiness for trial. The court adjourned the case.

Thereafter, the case was adjourned for discovery by stipulation (DBS) to April 2000, when DBS was served and filed and the matter was adjourned for hearings and trial.

Continue reading

It is alleged that on April 12, 2006, the three defendants were part of an undercover enforcement operation which, at the time, was a purported unlicensed massage parlor. After the defendants and other police officers arrested the owner of the establishment and seven of his female employees, those individuals were brought to the 72nd Precinct for processing. All individuals under arrest were to be charged with prostitution-related offenses that ostensibly occurred at the establishment.

While at the 72nd Precinct, the owner spoke with the third defendant Police Officer. The owner informed the Police Officer that he had a video surveillance system in his establishment. The Police Officer was told by the owner that this video system recorded the activity in the establishment at the time of the alleged sex crimes and that these recordings would exculpate him and his co-arrestees.

The individuals arrested for prostitution-related offenses were arraigned upon misdemeanor complaints in a Community Court in Brooklyn. Supporting depositions were filed in connection with their respective misdemeanor complaints. The supporting depositions, allegedly signed by the Lieutenant in an undercover capacity, affirm that the females charged in the complaint engaged an undercover — the Lieutenant — in conversations through which they offered him sex acts in exchange for money. All the criminal individuals arrested refused plea offers at their arraignment.

Continue reading

Defendant was indicted for two counts of first degree rape, two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and one count of unlawfully dealing with a child pornography, and defendant moved to suppress a statement he made to Sheriff’s Department Investigator and a letter he wrote to the victim. A hearing was held thereafter.

A Nassau County Criminal attorney said that in June 2006, an Investigator was contacted at home and asked to go to a General Hospital to begin a rape investigation. After speaking with the victim, he went to defendant’s residence and asked if he would talk with the detective about the incident. Because there were other people present in defendant’s home, the investigator and defendant went to a restaurant in Olean. Defendant rode in the front of the car, uncuffed and unshackled. At the restaurant, they spoke about the incident and investigator took down the information on his laptop. Before they left, Investigator told defendant not to have any contact with the victim but if defendant wanted to write the victim, the Investigator would insure that she received whatever defendant wrote. Defendant then wrote a note to the victim and gave it to the Investigator.

After the hearing, the court denied the motion to suppress the statements and scheduled a trial. Defendant has since served notice that he intends to call as a witness who will testify that defendant’s statement is false “in whole or part,” and that the investigator’s techniques and methods were “defective” and “likely to produce inaccurate statements.” Significantly, there was very little cross-examination at the hearing about any techniques or methods employed by Investigator. The District Attorney has now moved to preclude the witness’ testimony on the grounds that it has not gained general acceptance in the scientific community, is irrelevant, and would usurp the jury’s fact finding function.

Continue reading

Bronx Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of six counts of sodomy in the first degree , one count of attempted sodomy in the first degree , two counts of sodomy in the second degree , and one count of sex abuse in the first degree , pursuant to the Sexual Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA), the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommends designating defendant as a risk level three sexually violent offender upon his release from custody. Although conceding that his total risk factor score is correct, defendant argues at a risk assessment hearing that the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to a risk level two.

A Bronx Sex Crime Lawyer said that, on October 23, 2003, the Board submitted a risk assessment instrument. It recommends designating defendant as a sexually violent offender based on his convictions for sodomy in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, and sex abuse in the first degree. It also recommends classifying defendant as a risk level three based on an assessed score of 165. Specifically, the Board assessed: 10 points for use of forcible compulsion; 25 points for sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse or aggravated sexual abuse with the victim; 30 points for three or more victims; 20 points for engaging in a continuing course of sexual misconduct; 20 points for the age of the victims being between 11 and 16; 10 points for defendant being 20 years of age or less at the time of his first act of sexual misconduct; 30 points for a criminal history consisting of a prior violent felony, misdemeanor sex crime or endangering the welfare of a child; 10 points for the prior felony or sex crime occurring less than three years before the current incidents; and 10 points for unsatisfactory conduct while confined or supervised.

The Board then compiled a case summary “based upon a review of the inmate’s file which includes but is not limited to the pre-sentence investigation, prior criminal history and post-offense behavior”. This summary stated, in pertinent part, that: “In 1986, defendant was adjudicated a Youthful Offender for Criminal Possession of a Loaded Firearm, a sawed off rifle, and Theft of Services. As a result, he was placed on five years probation. While on probation for that offense, he was arrested for the instant sex offense for which he was convicted after trial. Regarding the sex offenses, [defendant], who was nineteen years old at the time, sodomized and sexually abused five young, runaway, boys who were between the ages of eleven and fifteen.

Continue reading

In this Criminal case, the Court is unanimous in its determination that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to this case and, therefore, the court discussed only the arguments advanced in the dissent.

A New York Criminal lawyer said that the dissent contends that the Trial Court erred in refusing to admit into evidence a certain paper, claimed to be a report of the accident, written out by the witness after a conversation with a fellow-employee. The latter was not produced by the defendant at the trial and his address is claimed to be unknown to the defendant. It is conceded witness did not see the accident.

It is clear from the record of this trial that the paper does not qualify as a record made and kept in the regular course of business, as contemplated by CPLR § 4518(a). After having asked the witness the question as to whether this paper was kept in the regular course of business, to which there was no answer, trial counsel for the defendant made no further effort in this regard and, as a result, there was a complete failure to establish the necessary foundation, as required by the section. Its exclusion was proper. There was no arson involved and also no assault in the case.

Continue reading

This is a proceeding wherein the defendant appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered 1 February 1971, which convicted him, upon a jury verdict, of the crime of rape and sexual abuse, both in the first degree, and imposed appropriate sentences.

The court reverses the judgment, on the law, and remands the case to the Nassau County Court for a new trial not inconsistent with this memorandum.

At the trial, the County Court permitted RC to testify that he was a probation officer over defense counsel’s vigorous objection and demand for a mistrial. Thereafter, RC stated that defendant came to his office and told him that he was wanted by the police for his alleged commission of an act of rape upon the complainant and that he had, in fact, engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant. There was no domestic violence.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, the Court ordered that the petitioners be subject to all of the required procedures under Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law which had become effective on April 13th, 2007, after the petitions had been filed but prior to the time the Court of Appeals decide. The Court noted that although Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law was enacted subsequent to the placement of the respondents at the Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center under Article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law, the respondents were explicitly designated as subject to Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law by the terms of the statute.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the State commenced each of the actions at issue here in New York County more than 2 ½ years ago, initially, pursuant to Article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law and later under Article 10. Respondents have been confined in New York County where the cases have continued to be venue since that time. Prior to moving to change venue in these motions in April of this year, no motions for a change of venue had been made by either the State or the Respondents in these cases. A trial date has not yet been set in any of these actions.

The issue in this case is whether the motion to change the venue of the case should be granted. No drug possession was involved.