New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

The complainant husband was granted an uncontested divorce from defendant-wife on the ground of constructive abandonment. This cause of action, often referred to as sexual abandonment, is perhaps the ground most widely used in proceedings where both sides agree to the divorce. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that as part of pleading his claim of sexual abandonment, the husband had to swear to the fact that he and his wife did not have sexual relations for over a year. The wife is attempting to use that statement to prevent her husband from seeking to establish that a child born during the course of the marriage, but conceived well after the date on which the parties allegedly stopped having sex, is actually his son.

The husband contends that irrespective of what he stated in the divorce pleadings, the child in question is in fact his child. He moves for an order directing that genetic marker testing be done so as to conclusively determine paternity. Upon such determination, he further seeks a declaration of paternity and the amendment of the divorce judgment to reflect that his son is the child of the marriage.

The wife opposes her husband’s motion in all regards. She points out that her husband, in his verified complaint for divorce, alleged that from August 1, 2006, onward she refused to have sexual relations with him. Thus, based on his own sworn statements, the wife contends that the child, who was not born until March 19, 2008, cannot possibly be his. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the wife further submits that if her husband is taking the position that the child is his child, this means that the sworn statements in his verified complaint concerning the lack of sexual relations must be untrue. With this regard, the wife cross moved for and order finding that her husband has committed perjury in the second degree.

Continue reading

A man, who was found guilty of grand larceny and petit larceny, filed an appeal and urges the insufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. But, the court finds the evidence sufficient to support the charges. The court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Based on records, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the court affirmed the conviction of breaking and entering, but it appears that the state failed to sufficiently prove intent to commit a felony and the record will only support a conviction of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. In addition, a misdemeanor would be reviewable in the circuit court. But, the trial judge had the power to make such settlement as to the lesser included offense.

The man points out the charges of petit larceny. However, the body of the information clearly charged a felony by alleging the felonious taking of personal property of a value in excess of $100.00 and the court announced that it found the man is guilty as charged. The court also found no error in the finding of guilt. But as it appears that the sentence was joined with that of the breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court likewise vacate the sentence and return the matter to the trial court for an appropriate sentence in accordance with the law of the state as made and provided for petit larceny. As a result, the matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings.

In April, 1973, as a result of a joint major Federal-State narcotics investigation, an indictment was filed against defendants #1, 2 &3, along with 10 other large-scale heroin merchants, for conspiracy to violate Federal drug laws. To support the conspiracy count, covering a period from May, 1971 until the filing of the indictment, 10 particular incidents, including meetings and drug deliveries, were specified as overt acts. A number of substantive drug crimes of heroin possession were also charged.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the instant appeals arise out of a separate concurrent State prosecution in which the three defendants were charged with sale and heroin possession of dangerous drugs. The indictment states that on each of January 8, 12, and 22, 1973, defendants #1,2 &3 possessed and sold over 16 ounces of heroin. These sales had neither been specified as overt acts of the Federal conspiracy nor had they been the subject of the substantive counts in that indictment.

The Federal charges were disposed of first. Defendants 1 & 3 pleaded guilty, among other counts, to conspiracy. Defendant #2,, on the other hand, went to trial and was found guilty on all counts charged. The evidence at that trial although not mentioned in the indictment included testimony concerning the three January drug sales that are the subject of the State prosecution. All three defendants received substantial Federal sentences.

Continue reading

An appeal was filed by the defendant who was convicted with the crimes of murder and criminal possession of a weapon. He alleged that the court erred in its decision to impose consecutive sentences for the indictments he committed claiming that the accused acted with a singular intent.

The Supreme Court, holding the recent decisions of the Court of Appeals, the determining factor to review the legality of consecutive sentences is “whether separate acts have been committed with the requisite criminal intent.” Consequently, the Court ruled that there was no overlap of the statutory elements of the crimes committed by the appellant, thus, affirming the lawful imposition of consecutive sentences.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said there were two resident gangs at Manhattan who had several altercations among its gang members. One group was composed of the defendant, his sibling and a friend while the other group was a street gang, whose two members were the victims in a shooting incident that caused filing of the felony case against the appellant. Several hours prior to the shooting confrontation, the two groups had encounters and thereafter physical altercations commenced among its gang members. One of the witnesses testified that she saw a gun being carried by the accused at that time of the altercation. After the lapse of a few hours, the defendant moved toward the victim, who was accompanied by other gang members. The group of the victim walked away from the offender to avoid any untoward incident. However, the defendant then took his gun from his shorts and chased down the victim and shot the two victims who died of gunshot wounds.

Continue reading

An undercover officer observed the accused hand a third party several glassines of heroin in exchange for money. When the officer solicited two glassines, the accused insisted that the alleged buyer first snort some heroin and, upon the officer refusing, the accused walked away without consummating that sale. When the backup team approached the accused, he ran, discarding 20 glassines of heroin during his flight. A New York Criminal Lawyer said this gave rise to charging the accused with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. When the accused was apprehended, he had an additional three glassines of heroin on his person and two $20 bills in his pocket. This gave rise to charging the accused with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Eight glassines of heroin were recovered from the accused man’s underwear at the precinct. The accused testified that he was an addict who snorted several bags of heroin daily, that he carried the drugs only for his own use, that he had purchased, rather than sold, the heroin, and that he had resisted the advances of a stranger who turned out to be the undercover officer. The evidence sufficiently proves the charges. However, procedural concerns require a reversal of the criminal possession conviction.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said after summations and submissions of the final charges to the jury, the counsel requested submission of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree as a lesser included drug offense of the third-degree possessory offense. The court refused, not on any statutory basis, but because the timing of the request contravened the court’s policy. The record supports the defense counsel’s representation that, in fact, he had previously indicated to the court’s Law Secretary that the request might be made, but that counsel would have to hear the accused man’s testimony first. The complainant concedes that if the request had been timely made, the accused would have been entitled to the charge. Although it is manifestly preferable that both counsel know all the charges to be submitted to the jury before summations, the statute appears to authorize such request to be made by counsel at any time prior to the submission of the case to the jury, and the Court of Appeals has characterized this as a general rule, which also reflects the practice in the Second Department. In the present case, there is no indication that the timing of the request manifested an abusive practice, or that granting it would have prejudiced the complainant. Under the circumstances of the case, the charge should have been given to the jury. In reversing and remanding this charge for trial, the remaining charge of which the accused was convicted remains unaffected, insofar as it depended on a different item of evidence.

In one of the heroin related cases, as a result of his alleged sale of heroin to a confidential informant in two controlled buys and his heroin possession at the time of his arrest for those sales while on his way to a third such transaction, the accused was charged by indictment with, among other things, five counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Following a hearing, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the County Court denied the accused man’s pretrial motion to suppress all evidence resulting from his warrantless arrest, finding that the police had probable cause to arrest him. The accused was then convicted as charged following a jury trial. The County Court sentenced him as a second felony offender to five concurrent prison terms of 11 to 22 years and he now appeals.

Continue reading