The people of the state of New York are the respondents in this particular case. The appellant in the case is Jessie Dunn. The case is being heard in the Fourth Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
This case for appeal deals with the question of whether the rights of the defendant were violated under the fourth amendment of the constitution.
Case Background
The respondent in this matter are the People of the State of New York. The People of the State of New York are represented by the office of Patrick Henry, District Attorney in Riverhead. Michael Blakey is their counsel. The appellant of the case is Alan M. Buckmaster. He is being represented by Alan Schneier from Valley Stream. The case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
This is a case for appeal initiated by the defendant in regard to a judgment that was issued by the County Court of Suffolk County. Judge Rohl issued the judgment being appealed. The judgment convicted the defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. The defendant pled guilty to this crime.
Case Background
The respondent in the matter is the People of the State of New York. The appellant of the case is Edwin W. Jones. The case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said this is a case of appeal made by the defendant in regard to a judgment that was made by Judge Kahn in the county court of Suffolk County. The judgment was made on the fifth of January, 2006. The defendant, Edwin W. Jones, was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, leaving an incident scene without reporting the incident, and operating a vehicle while under the influence of drugs.
The defendant pled guilty to the charges and the imposing sentence.
On March 21, 2002, a defendant was sentenced to two years of probation in Michigan for attempted home invasion in the first degree. On August 22, 2003, the same man was charged in the Bronx with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance (drug possession) in the third and seventh degrees. On October 22, 2003, the man entered a plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
He was advised by the judge that if he participated in a drug rehabilitation program at a supervised treatment accountability for safer communities facility, that he would be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. He would then be sentenced as a misdemeanor and able to perform time served. However, if he did not comply with the agreement, he would be sentenced to four and one half to nine years confinement.
On December 4, 2003, he was released to enter the drug program. One week later the treatment center reported that he had failed to complete the program successfully and had stopped coming after the first week. He was arrested again, and appeared on August 4, 2005 when he was picked up on the warrant following being charged in Michigan under an assumed name for assault with intent to murder, assault with intent to do great bodily harm but not murder, and assault with a dangerous weapon. The Michigan court allowed the defendant to plead nolo contender to the assault with intent to murder. He was also allowed to plead nolo to the dangerous weapons charge. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term in prison from two to fifteen years, plus two years for the felony firearms charge to run consecutively.
The complainant, a 19-year-old woman, reported to the town police that she had been raped and sodomized at gunpoint on a deserted beach near her home. The complainant testified that at about nine that evening she had received a phone call from a friend, telling her that he was in trouble and asking her to meet him at a nearby market in half an hour. Twenty minutes later, the same person called back and changed the meeting place. The complainant arrived at the agreed-upon place, shut off the car engine and waited. A New York DWI Lawyer said she saw a man approach her car and she unlocked the door to let him in. Only then did she realize that the person who had approached and entered the car was not the friend she had come to meet. According to the complainant, he pointed a gun at her, directed her to the nearby beach, and once they were there, raped and sodomized her.
The complainant arrived home around 11:00 P.M., woke her mother and told her about the attack. Her mother then called the police. Sometime between 11:30 P.M. and midnight, the police arrived at the complainant’s house. At that time, the complainant told the police she did not know who her attacker was. She was taken to the police station where she described the events leading up to the attack and again repeated that she did not know who her attacker was. At the conclusion of the interview, the complainant was asked to step into a private room to remove the clothes that she had been wearing at the time of the attack so that they could be examined for forensic evidence. While she was alone with her mother, the complainant told her that her male friend had been her attacker. The time was approximately 1:15 A.M. The complainant had known her friend for years, and she later testified that she happened to see him the night before the attack at a local convenience store.
Her mother summoned one of the detectives and the complainant repeated that the accused friend had been the person who attacked her. The complainant said that she was sure that it had been her friend because she had had ample opportunity to see his face during the incident. The complainant subsequently identified her friend as her attacker in two separate lineups. A New York DWI Lawyer said he was arrested and was indicted by the Grand Jury on one count of rape in the first degree, two counts of sodomy in the first degree and one count of sexual abuse in the first degree.
A woman had been living with a man for thirteen years and they had a seven year old daughter. The woman ended her relationship with her live-in partner and left the apartment she shared with the man. She took her daughter along.
On February 13, 2007 the man invited the woman back to the apartment they used to share to try to reconcile and talk about their daughter. The woman came and they talked. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said their talk ended late at night so the defendant invited his former live-in partner to sleep in the living room of their old apartment. The next morning, the man raped his live-in partner three times.
The woman filed criminal charges and submitted herself to a physical examination where a rape kit was used to gather physical evidence from her. The woman also applied and obtained an order of protection for herself and for her daughter and against her husband. The court extended this order of protection six times during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. Her live-in partner was arrested only on April 11, 2007. He was charged with rape in the first and third degrees and sexual abuse in the first and third degrees.
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.
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.
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.
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.
