Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, defendant is a convicted sex crime offender pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a having pled guilty on April 6, 1994, to one count of Attempted Rape in the First Degree, a lesser-included crime of Count I of the Indictment charging Rape in the First Degree under Penal Law § 130.35(3), commonly known as “statutory” rape. All other charges in the Indictment (one count of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree under PL § 130.65(3) and 2 counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Minor) are also based upon the age of the victim. There are no allegations of forcible compulsion per se. Defendant has challenged his proposed “moderate” risk level designation under the sex Offender Registration Act as not consistent with the facts of his case and his due process rights.

Defendant was arrested on March 5, 1993, and charged with Rape in the First Degree under Penal Law § 130.35(3), Sex Abuse in the First Degree, and Endangering the Welfare of a Child based upon the complaint of ten-year old victim who stated Defendant had removed her clothing, spread her legs, and placed his penis inside her vagina. He later gave her five dollars to keep secret what had happened. The Sex Abuse charge was dismissed upon a technical error in the Grand Jury presentation. Defendant was also charged in the same indictment with endangering the welfare of the child, age 15, who was photographed by Defendant, both with her consent and surreptitiously, in her underwear following her refusal of Defendant’s requests for “sexual contact.” There was no admission to this accusation although the minutes of Grand Jury testimony and one of the photographs submitted by the District Attorney do provide the necessary clear and convincing evidence that such incident took place.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant pled guilty before now-retired Justice to Attempted Rape in the First Degree with respect to the allegations concerning the victim. The then-58-year-old Defendant, a live-in friend of the victim’s grandmother with whom both the victims also resided, admitted he had “had sex” with the victim and knew she was “under eleven.” On April 18, 1994, Defendant was sentenced to one and a half to four and a half years incarceration. Defendant was released from prison on March 1, 1996. On May 12, 1997, Defendant appeared in response to notice and was appointed counsel. Challenging his recommended assessment at risk level 2, pursuant to Correction Law § 168-n(3), on August 25, 1997, Defendant requested a hearing. A full hearing was held on December 17, 1997.

Continue reading

Respondent who is charged with committing acts which, were she an adult, would constitute the crimes of Prostitution, Resisting Arrest, Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, and False Personation, has moved pursuant to Family Court Act § 311.4(3) for an order directing the substitution of a petition alleging that she is a Person in Need of Supervision for the petition alleging that she is a juvenile delinquent.

A Queens County Sex crimes attorney said that the juvenile delinquency petition filed by the Presentment Agency alleges that the respondent, offered to engage in sexual conduct with an undercover police officer in exchange for payment, in violation of Penal Law § 230.00. The petition further alleges that respondent resisted arrest by fleeing from police officers who intended to take her into custody for committing the crime of Prostitution, and that she obstructed governmental administration by physically resisting arrest and by refusing to follow the directives of police officers after she had been taken into custody. Assault was not charged.

With respect to the prostitution charge, the supporting deposition of an undercover police officer, states that in the vicinity, “a known prostitution location”, the respondent asked what he want. He replied, in sum and substance, a quickie’, which intended to mean oral sex, and made a hand gesture which indicated oral sex’. The respondent then said, in sum and substance, if he want a blowjob’, which he understood to mean oral sex. He asked the respondent how much for the blowjob and she replied, in sum and substance, fifty dollars’. The respondent then got inside of the vehicle.”

Continue reading

This is an action for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and civil rights violations which stems from plaintiff’s arrest in the Village of Lake Placid, Essex County, on 2 November 1995 for rape and sodomy in the first degree.

The complainant was a woman that plaintiff had met at a party the previous evening. At approximately 3:30 A.M. on 2 November 1995, plaintiff arrived at the cottage where the complainant was staying—an encounter which he claims was prearranged—and was led to the complainant’s bedroom by her cousin, CS. After some small talk, according to plaintiff, they engaged in consensual oral sex and sexual intercourse which did not last for long because the complainant became sick. When she did not respond to his inquiries about “what was going on”, plaintiff got mad and left to drive JC, a friend who had accompanied him to the cottage, home. When plaintiff returned to the cottage shortly thereafter to check on the complainant, she was crying and had told CS that plaintiff raped her. After contacting the police, the complainant was taken to a local hospital by two Village of Lake Placid patrolmen for a rape kit examination. Thereafter, she was taken to the police station and interviewed by Village of Lake Placid Police Detective D. She gave him an oral statement accusing plaintiff of having nonconsensual sexual intercourse with her, which was later reduced to writing, albeit after plaintiff’s arrest.

Upon learning that the police were looking for him in connection with the complainant’s allegations of a sex crimes, plaintiff voluntarily presented himself to the police station between 8:45 and 9:00 A.M. on 2 November 1995. He too gave an oral statement to D, claiming that he engaged in consensual sexual relations with the complainant a few hours earlier. D’s questioning of plaintiff stopped when he requested the presence of an attorney. At approximately 9:50 A.M. that day, D placed plaintiff under arrest. After the complainant had second thoughts about pursuing the charges, the District Attorney ultimately decided not to prosecute the matter, finding insufficient credible evidence to support a prosecution. Plaintiff’s action against defendant followed. Supreme Court’s order denying defendant summary judgment has prompted this appeal.

Continue reading

This is a proceeding wherein the criminal court in this appeal asks for the first time to consider the admissibility of expert testimony proffered on the issue of the reliability of a confession. While in a proper case expert testimony on the phenomenon of false confessions should be admitted, the expert here did not propose testimony relevant to this defendant or her interrogation. As a result, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he declined to hold a Frye hearing to assess whether any principles about which the expert proposed to testify were generally accepted in the scientific community, or to permit the expert to testify.

Defendant A, a teacher’s assistant at Veda’s Learning World in Queens County, New York, is alleged to have sex abused a four-year-old boy left in her care. She is accused of pressing the boy’s hand to her partially exposed breast and touching his penis on three separate occasions between January 2 and 11 February 2006. During the last of these sexual encounters, defendant is also alleged to have placed the boy’s penis against and into her vagina.

On 19 February 2006, a Sunday, the boy who was recovering from a viral rash in his rectal area, was bathed by his mother. He repeatedly complained of itching causing his mother to ask him if anyone had touched him in his “private areas.” The mother had asked her son this question before and he had always replied “no, mommy.” But this time, the boy answered “yes,” that “A,”, “went up and down, up and down on his ‘pee-pee.'” He asked his mother not to tell anyone, though, because “teacher” wanted him to keep this secret.

Continue reading

A Nassau Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, before the Court is an Article 10, child abuse and neglect proceeding brought by the Department of Social Services (hereinafter referred to as “DSS”) on behalf of the children. The Respondent is charged, as a parent substitute, with sexually abusing the child, the first child. The respondent mother is charged with failing to protect the child. The petition on behalf of the second child is brought as a derivative petition against both respondents.

A Nassau Rape Lawyer said that, the petitions allege that the respondent parent substitute/father committed, or allowed to be committed, a sex offense upon said child, as defined in the penal law. The respondents parent substitute/father and mother failed to provide said child with proper supervision or guardianship, and said child’s physical, mental and emotional condition has been impaired and/or are in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of the respondents to exercise a minimum degree of care, requiring the aid of this Court, to wit: a) The respondent parent substitute/father has committed sex offenses upon this six (6) year old child. The respondent parent substitute/father placed a condom on his finger and inserted that finger into the six year old child’s rectum. The respondent parent substitute/father did this, on 12/25/07, while babysitting the first child and his biological child, was present in the same bed. b) On or about 12/25/07, the first child told the respondent mother that the respondent parent substitute/father inserted his finger in her butt. The respondent mother found the condom. On or about 3/26/08, the respondent mother told a detective from the Nassau County police department that she wanted to stop the investigation as she wanted the respondent parent substitute/father to return to the residence. The respondent mother is unwilling or unable to protect said child. Said child is in imminent danger of physical, mental and emotional harm due to the failure of the respondent mother to provide a minimum degree of care in the circumstances.

A Nassau Criminal Rape Lawyer said that, a fact-finding hearing was held over a number of dates: March 5, 2009, March 6, 2009, March 9, 2009, March 10, 2009, March 13, 2009, April 13, 2009, April 16, 2009, May 4, 2009 and May 18, 2009. The Presentment Agency, DSS, called seven witnesses. The respondents did not call any witnesses, nor did the Attorney for the Children.

Continue reading

In this Criminal case, a jury has found the defendant guilty of assault, second degree, with intent to rape. He is now before me for sentence and in connection therewith the District Attorney has filed a prior offense information which alleges that the defendant is now a second felony offender by reason of the fact that he was previously convicted, after trial, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, of three crimes, viz., (1) aggravated assault and battery, (2) assault with intent to ravish and (3) rape.

A Queens County Criminal lawyer said that the defendant denies his status as a second felony offender. Defendant’s identity as the Pennsylvania convict is conceded but he contends that the prior acceptance by the same court of a plea of guilty to the crime of fornication makes it legally impossible for the crimes alleged in the information now before this court to be considered felonies if committed in New York and that therefore he is not legally a second felony offender. The fact that he was convicted, by the same court, upon his plea of guilt of the crime of fornication based upon a single incident, involving the same woman is claimed to obliterate the effect of the convictions of the rape, and the assault with intent to commit it, as felonies, it being contended that the crimes of fornication vis-a-vis the crimes of rape and assault with intent to commit rape are mutually exclusive.

The essence of the argument is that under Pennsylvania Law, adultery or fornication is consensual sexual intercourse, so that the yielding of consent was necessarily adjudicated by the Court when it accepted defendant’s guilty plea on the fornication charge and entered a judgment thereon. However, neither actual nor implicit ‘consent’ appears within the framework of the operative facts of record, and the defendant is limited to those facts.

The criminal defendant is adjudicated to be a Level Three Sex Offender after a Sex Offender Registration Act hearing held on 5 August 2008.

The defendant was charged under this indictment with Rape in the First Degree stemming from an incident that occurred on 18 February 1976. He was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration of from 8½ to 25 years. In 1996, the defendant was classified as a level three sex offender. Thereafter, as a result of the Stipulation of Settlement in Doe v Pataki, he was afforded a new hearing on his sex offender status, utilizing a new risk assessment instrument.

In December 2004, a SORA hearing was conducted before this Court, which designated the defendant a level three sex offender. The defendant appealed from this adjudication and on 13 November 2007, the Second Department reversed it and remitted the matter for a new hearing and determination based on the untimely notice of the new risk assessment instrument, which the defendant did not receive until the day of the hearing.

Continue reading

A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, the “adult” establishments at the center of this controversy offer various forms of sexual expression. These businesses include bookstores, theaters, stores dealing in videotaped material and places of live entertainment. In 1965, there were only nine such establishments in New York City. That figure has fluctuated over the past 30 years, but the last decade has experienced a steady growth in the industry, with sections of Manhattan and Queens showing the greatest development. By 1993, there were 177 adult establishments operating in New York City: 107 in Manhattan, 44 in Queens, 15 in Brooklyn, eight in the Bronx and three in Staten Island.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, on February 27, 1996, the Amsterdam Video plaintiffs, consisting of more than 100 owners and operators of adult establishments in the City, and the plaintiffs, consisting of four patrons of such establishments, commenced actions in Supreme Court, New York County, against the City and related officials. Plaintiffs alleged that the Amended Zoning Resolution deprived them of their right to free expression protected by article I, § 8 of the New York State Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs sought relief in the form of a judgment declaring the zoning amendments unconstitutional and enjoining their enforcement.

Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, but on plaintiffs’ application the court remanded plaintiffs’ causes of action grounded in the State Constitution, retaining jurisdiction over the Federal claims. Subsequently, a cabaret featuring topless dancers separately challenged the constitutionality of the amendments and sought injunctive relief. Supreme Court then granted the intervention motions of TSBID, the Center for Community Interest, and 45 other community groups, business organizations and local elected officials and consolidated the actions for hearing.

In this Criminal action, defendants filed a motion for ‘an order directing the dismissal of the indictment herein upon the ground that the Grand Jury which returned said indictment was unconstitutionally selected and therefore did not acquire jurisdiction to charge the defendants. Before dealing with the merits it is necessary to point out some procedural defects in the making of the motion.

A Queens Criminal attorney said that the legend indictment is endorsed on the back of the motion papers and on the face of the notice of motion. That indictment, however, does not list the persons above-named as defendants. It names only 2 defendants and charges them with one crime, to wit: conspiracy to commit murder. However, the caption on the motion papers here names as defendants, in addition to the two, the five other persons above-named. The title on these motion papers is therefore clearly incorrect and is doubtless due to the fact that all seven defendants listed in these motion papers, together with ten other defendants, are named as defendants in another indictment (which charges the defendants with conspiracy to commit criminal anarchy and which was handed down simultaneously). The moving defendants no doubt desire to have this one motion apply to both indictments. Therefore, despite the faulty procedure, the decision rendered on this motion will be considered to apply to both of said indictments.

The Court held that the motion to dismiss the indictments is bottomed upon the postulate that the grand jury which returned the indictments was unconstitutionally selected. As the predicate of this postulate, defendants contend that the provisions of the Judiciary Law dealing with the qualifications of grand jurors in New York City are unconstitutional because the provisions therein that a juror to be qualified to serve must be intelligent; of sound mind and good character; well informed and a person who has not been convicted of a ‘misdemeanor involving moral turpitude’ set up an impermissible subjective test for qualification of a juror to be applied by the jury clerk.

Continue reading

In response, the People contend that the facts alleged make out a completed rape and Defendant’s own statements and DNA testing confirm that he had sexual intercourse with the victim. The People then claim that, pursuant to another case, Courts are not limited to the single charge to which Defendant pled guilty, but rather, may rely on the victim’s sworn testimony, Defendant’s plea, Grand Jury testimony, Defendant’s statements and DNA evidence.

The sentencing court is charged with making the actual determination regarding whether a defendant is a Sexual Predator, Sexually Violent Offender or Predicate Sex Offender, and if he is to be designated as a Risk Level 1, 2 or 3. The sentencing court is to use the same factors as the Board in making its determination. However, the ability of the sentencing court to depart from the recommendation is premised on a recognition that an objective instrument, no matter how well designed, will not fully capture the nuances of every case. Therefore, the court may not depart from the presumptive risk level unless it concludes that there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines.

At the hearing, the People bear the burden of proving the facts supporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence and in making the determinations the court shall review any victim’s statement and any relevant materials and evidence submitted by the sex offender and the district attorney and the recommendation and any materials submitted by the board, and may consider reliable hearsay evidence submitted by either party, provided that it is relevant to the determination. Facts previously proven at trial or elicited at the time of entry of a plea of guilty shall be deemed established by clear and convincing evidence and shall not be religitated.

Continue reading