Assault

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 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: May 1, 2012

Court Discusses Throwing Out Assault Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was indicted for assault in the first degree and for criminal possession of a loaded firearm as a felony. The man was accused of having assaulted another man by aiming and discharging a loaded pistol at him, with an intent to kill the other individual. At the close of the case, the counsel of the man requested the trial court to charge the jury with respect to assault in the second and third degrees, in addition to assault in the first degree. The court denied the request as it was to charge assault in the third degree. The jury found that the man is guilty of the gun crime and of assault in the second degree.

The court agrees in affirmation as to the conviction for possession of the firearm, but opposes and votes to reverse the judgment insofar. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the judge giving the opinion that, under the circumstances of the case, the trial court committed reversible error in refusing the man’s request to charge assault in the third degree. The evidence tends to establish that the man and the victim of the assault, together with several other companions, who had been drinking in a bar for several hours prior to the incident. When the abovementioned bar closed for the night, the group proceeded across the street and commenced horsing around. The victim testified that he was pretty high at the time of the incident. The behavior engaged in were variously described as kidding around, carrying on, wrestling and grabbing each other, and rolling on the ground. There came a time when the man allegedly drew a pistol and fired it, wounding the victim. The record is barren of evidence which would tend to establish a motive or provocation for the assault. The testimony of the victim, his brother and several other companions is to the consequence that the man drew a pistol, aimed it at the victim and fired. The description of the assault by one of the companions differs materially from that of the others. One of the companions described the incident and stated that they were over there singing and cracking jokes when the man came and said a few words before the gun went off. The gun went off coming out from the man’s pocket. The witness further said that he had just seen the fire and he didn’t see the gun. Therefore, there can be no assurance for assault in the second degree because of the absent proof of the requisite intent. Although the testimony of the victim and the others, excluding one, is sufficient to support a conviction for assault in the second degree, the other companion’s testimony tends to establish that the gun went off accidentally as the man withdrew it from his pocket. The said testimony, coupled with the evidence that the group was intoxicated and the absence of evidence showing motive for the assault, would tend to negate the presence of the required intent. Under the said circumstances, the trial court should have charged the jury with respect to assault in the third degree, which requires no specific intent.

Based on records, it has been repeatedly written that if, upon any view of the facts, an offender could properly be found guilty of a lesser degree or an included crime then the trial judge must submit such lower offense. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer does not matter how strongly the evidence points to guilt of the crime charged in the condemnation, or how unreasonable it would be, as a court may appraise the weight of the evidence, to find not guilty of that crime and convict of the less serious crime.

Published on: April 20, 2012

Should Lawyer Involved in Domestic Violence be Suspended?

by Stephen Bilkis

A lawyer was admitted into the practice of law in New York in December 7, 2006 and he has been practicing as a lawyer in New York since that tiime . Sometime in October 4, 2007, he assaulted his live-in girlfriend. He threw her repeatedly onto the floor. He slapped her on the face repeatedly while screaming that she was a slut and a whore. The girlfriend sustained injuries that required a medical attention.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said after he assaulted his girlfriend, he smashed her Cartier watch with a hammer. He took her designer purse and filled it with water. He punctured a painting that belonged to her and he sprayed her couch with water and oil.

He was charged with assault and with criminal destruction of property. He pleaded guilty to the assault and entered a plea bargain agreement where he promised to pay the damage to his girlfriend’s property in the amount of $8,000.00. He was sentenced to ten months imprisonment and he served six months of that sentence in jail. A final order of protection was entered against him.

Published on: April 18, 2012

After Multiple Charges, Defendant Pleads Insanity Defense

by Stephen Bilkis

After a jury trial, a man was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree, two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, three counts of assault in the first degree, 15 counts each of kidnapping in the second degree and kidnapping in the second degree, five counts each of assault in the second degree as a hate crime and of assault in the second degree, and three counts each of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as second violent felony offender, to a cumulative term of 240 years.

In the main charge on the insanity argument and its response to notes from the deliberating jury, the court properly read the jury instructions pattern which charge on the said subject. The court properly declined to add language instructing the jury to consider the man’s capacity to know or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct from a subjective point of view relating to the false beliefs that he allegedly held as a result of psychiatric illness. The standard language permitted the jury to accept the man’s insanity argument under the theory that his asserted mental disorder caused him to sincerely believe that society would approve of his immoral acts because they were divinely commanded. The court was not obligated to add the language to that effect or to give any special instructions concerning a false belief. The court also concludes that the supplemental instructions were meaningful responses to the notes. The court further notes that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that the man did not have any delusions or hallucinations about being divinely commanded to commit his criminal acts.

The man’s first trial resulted in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. On his retrial, the man was convicted of 53 counts, including attempted murder and assault, both as hate crimes, and was acquitted of attempted murder in the first degree. The only defense raised was that the man was not responsible by reason of mental disease when he committed the criminal acts. The psychiatrist called by the Court found that the man was legally sane when he acted, but other examining psychiatrists found man to be seriously delusional and/or insane.

Published on: April 17, 2012

Wife Contends Husband Violated Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

A former wife commenced a Family Court proceeding alleging that her husband argued with her, cursed at her and destroyed her property. The wife also alleged that on prior occasions, her husband had assaulted and threatened her. She requested and received an order of protection from the Family Court that directed her husband shall not assault, menace, harass, recklessly endanger or engage in disorderly conduct toward her. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the wife brought a second petition before the Family Court alleging that her husband violated the temporary order of protection by forcing his way into her home and by menacing her with a knife and by calling her on the phone and by continually threatening to kill her. After the fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the wife had met her burden of requisite quantum proof.

After a dispositional hearing, the Family Court placed the husband on one year probation and required him to attend a batterer’s program. The Family Court issued a final three year order of protection after finding the presence of aggravating circumstances under Family Court Act.

While the Family Court case was pending, the husband had been arrested and charged with various crimes. The husband was indicted for burglary, assault, attempted assault, criminal possession of a weapon and criminal contempt, criminal mischief, aggravated harassment all alleged to have occurred on April 1995. The accused party’s motions contend that the Supreme Court prosecutions are barred by constitutional and state statutory double jeopardy protection. The husband contends that the Family Court proceeding against him was a prosecution for the same conduct or offense as charged in the respective indictment against him. Moreover, he contends that the disposition or sentence imposed by the Family Court constituted criminal punishment.

Published on: April 11, 2012

Court Decides if Defendant is Guilty of Criminal Mischief

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused defendant is charged with assaulting his former girlfriend in the presence of their three children. The trial testimony established that during the assault, the victim attempted to call 911 for police assistance (using a land-line telephone) and she made a very brief initial contact, but was then immediately thwarted by defendant, who bound the victim’s wrists with the telephone cord and then slammed the telephone on the victim’s hands/fingers as she tried again to dial 911. At some point, however, during the incident the abused victim was able to complete a 911 call using the same telephone.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the jury acquitted defendant of assault in the third degree but convicted him of attempted assault in the third degree, three counts of endangering the welfare of a child and criminal mischief in the fourth degree; the last one is the subject of defendant’s instant motion.

The primordial issue in is whether or not the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to establish the necessary elements of criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

Published on: January 28, 2012

Haircut Stabbing Results in Man Jailed

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer has learned that one man who was getting a haircut has stabbed another man. While this in itself may not seem terribly out of the ordinary, the result is that one New Haven, CT, man is in the hospital and another is due in court on March 22 to answer to first-degree assault charges.

For the sake of this story, so as not to mention any names, we will refer to the man getting the haircut as man A, and the other as man B. The incident began when man A was sitting in a chair at an apartment while getting a haircut. About halfway through the haircut, man B walks into the apartment. Man A and man B had been arguing earlier and man A thought that man B had come to the apartment to harm him. Before it could truly be determined whether man B had the intentions of doing man A any harm, man A slashed man B in the back with a pair of scissors.

When police arrived at the apartment, man A was taken into custody without incident. As of this writing, the local police department has not returned calls left by a Long Island Criminal Lawyer . It has been learned however, that man A is also wanted by authorities for a second-degree failure to appear warrant that was issued for a previous arrest. No information on the victim (man B) can be learned at this time. Man A had cuts on his face and back and was being treated, but expected to recover.

Published on: January 27, 2012

8-Year Old Boy Taken Into Custody for Assault

by Stephen Bilkis

An 8-year old boy was taken into custody by police after he assaulted a school employee in Florida. After disrupting his classroom, the boy, a special-education student, left the school grounds followed by one of the school’s behavioral specialists. When the boy returned to the school, he found a pile of sticks and other objects and began throwing them at the behavioral specialist striking her at least once, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. Other school employees intervened to calm the boy before he was arrested.

This is the boy’s fifth arrest for assault and the disruption of an educational institution. In earlier incidents, the boy threw books, broke windows, chased other students and threw chairs at teachers and other school employees. During one incident, the boy insisted that he be sent to jail. School officials are unsure as to why the boy continues to act out in a violent manner, says a New York Criminal Lawyer. Last December, The Florida Department of Children and Families was notified about possible child abuse at the boy’s home. Reports show that while the boy suffered an injury, there was not enough evidence to support child abuse was the cause.

Over the past few months, the boy’s violent tendencies have increased, according to school officials. The boy was arrested in November and December for assault. The boy has since been arrested three more times. Charges ranging from assaulting students and teachers to destroying public property have been filed. In addition to throwing books and chairs in the classroom, the boy has also damaged computer equipment. Whether or not the boy is acting out due to abuse at home is unknown at this point.

Published on: January 21, 2012

Accident Victims Shot

by Stephen Bilkis

Three accident victims were shot after being injured in a car accident in rural southern town, said a New York Criminal Lawyer. The accident occurred at night in the early evening. The victims included the driver and his two young daughters, ages four and seven.

Local police officers at the scene revealed that the victims’ car was rear-ended by an African American male, 21, early Tuesday evening near an intersection. Once he left his car, the African American male walked up to the car with a .22 pistol and began shooting frantically into the victims’ vehicle. The driver was shot three times. The seven year old daughter was shot four times. The youngest daughter was not injured by the gunfire.

According to authorities, the gunshot victims were treated for minor injuries at a local hospital. Their injuries were determined not to be life-threatening. The father was released the next morning, Wednesday, following treatment. No information was available concerning the status of the two daughters or when they were released.