Sex Crimes

Published on: June 29, 2012

Court Orders New Trial in Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

An appeal was filed by three men on a decision charging them for the crimes of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and assault in the second degree.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the three men, as the appellants, made an offer of proof concerning the complaints of prior sexual conduct of the woman. The three men offered an affidavit from an 18-year-old college student. The college student stated that the complainant had performed fellatio on him, but that she would not let him touch her breasts. He also stated that various other males had told him of sexual relations had by them with the complainant. In a similar affidavit, another 18-year-old university student stated that he had sexual relations with the complainant on five other occasions and during the course of which the complainant had never permitted him to touch her exceptionally large breasts. The complainant also told the second witness that that she was sexually active. The second witness believed that the complainant was willing to have sex with anyone at any time. Lastly, on the affidavit of the former employer of the complainant, he stated that he too had sexual relations on approximately 12 occasions with the complainant and that she never allowed him to touch her breasts and had told him that she was sexually promiscuous.

After a hearing and a review of the various exhibits submitted by the appellants, the trial court ruled that some of the subdivisions were not applicable and that the evidence offered was not relevant and acceptable. Additionally, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual conduct was therefore disqualified at the trial. The appellants further assert that the penal law permits the trial court to prohibit the admission of relevant evidence in order to protect the privacy of the complaining witness. They contend that this prohibition violates their right to a fair trial.

Published on: June 29, 2012

Defendant Claims Bringing Up Prior Acts Prejudiced Jury

by Stephen Bilkis

Drug Possession crimes are a problem in every city in the United States, but courts do not usually expect to find them on their own back doorsteps. In the case of the Supreme Court of Bronx County in 1972, they did not expect to find the drug problem on the very steps of the courthouse. However, that is exactly what transpired in September of 1972. An undercover narcotics team was working a case involving a drug ring that was operating out of Franz Segal Park just around the corner from the Bronx County Supreme Court building. The narcotics undercover team made three different purchases of narcotics from the dealer on September 8, 11, and 12.

The undercover officer would meet with the dealer in Franz Park, make the purchase, and then return to the team with the cocaine. The narcotic would be tested to ensure that it was cocaine. The undercover officer was wearing a wire so that the transaction was tape recorded. However, there was no video at the time that was effective in the field. Following the third purchase, the defendant was arrested for trafficking in narcotics. In his trial, he testified that he was not a drug dealer and that he had never sold anyone any drugs. The undercover team had to testify that they had not witnessed the transactions and had only seen the undercover officer leave with the money and come back with the cocaine (cocaine possession).

Interestingly, at trial the prosecutor questioned the officer extensively about the purchases that he made from the defendant in Franz Park. He went in to great detail to show that the time and place of the transaction for which the defendant was charged was identical to the time and place in which he had previously been arrested for dealing drugs. The problem with this line of questioning was that according to the law, prior offenses can only be brought up in trial to show the credibility of the witness. A prosecutor may not use questioning on previous acts to show a propensity to commit the crime that the defendant is on trial. That policy is set forth in People v. Schwartzman, Supra, 24 N.Y.2d p. 247, 299 N.Y.S. 2d p. 822, 247 N.E.2d p. 645. The crimes for which the prosecutor was referring were the two prior drug deals that were under indictment, yet not adjudicated by the time of the trial in question.

Published on: June 28, 2012

Court Discusses Crime of Rape in the Third Degree

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant was charged with robbery, larceny, assault (two counts), endangering the welfare of a child, and sexual abuse in the third degree; a six-count indictment on criminal law violations.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said these the crimes were allegedly committed on 26 September 1967, the prosecution was under the new Penal Law, which was enacted in 1965, effective as of 1 September 1967.

Published on: June 28, 2012

Rape Trauma Syndrome Discussed by Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 10 September 1988, the victim, a married college professor, was driving from her home to a family wedding when, at about 7:30 P.M., she was stopped on the Northway by defendant, then a uniformed State Trooper. At defendant’s request, she gave him her license and registration. Defendant told her she was driving erratically and had failed to signal a lane change properly. He instructed her to leave her car, walk a straight line, and then enter the passenger seat of the patrol car, where he told her she could be in serious trouble, including DWI charges, and would have to blow in his face as a sobriety test. While she was doing this a second time, at defendant’s behest, he put his mouth on hers, began fondling her, and told her he was going to make it or do it with her, but first had to go to State Police barracks for a condom. The victim followed defendant to the barracks in her own car, though he retained her license and registration. She testified that she remained terrified throughout this entire period believing that, with defendant armed, any escape attempt in an unfamiliar area would be futile and even fatal.

At the barracks, defendant placed the victim in the police car, instructing her to remain there while he went inside. She testified that she was still frozen with fear, not knowing whether defendant had friends in the barracks who knew what he was doing. On his return, they drove off while the victim, believing it vital to her safety, engaged defendant in conversation. When they reached a secluded area, defendant, still armed, sexually attacked her. He thereafter returned with her to the barracks and allowed her to proceed to her destination, where she explained to the wedding guests that she was late because of a car trouble. On her return home, after being unable to eat or sleep for two days, and overcoming her fear that defendant would harm her, the victim contacted a local rape crisis center, which ultimately led to a report to the State Police, an investigation, and defendant’s arrest.

Published on: June 28, 2012

Court Decides if Prior Convictions Should be Considered Felonies

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant has been found guilty of assault in the second degree, with intent to rape. He is now before the court for sentencing.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that a “prior offense” Information has been filed by the District Attorney 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.: aggravated assault and battery, assault with intent to ravish and rape.

Published on: June 27, 2012

Defendant Contends Incriminating Evidence Being Used

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 24, 1977, a woman reported to the police that she had been raped that morning. One month after the reported rape, the District Attorney applied to the court to compel the accused to participate in a line up in connection with the investigation of the August 1977 rape. The application was denied by the court.

A year later, on August 24, 1978, another woman from the same town reported a rape in the early morning. She said that a man who drove a Cadillac Eldorado had raped her. She memorized the license plate. The police checked the license plate and it matched the license plate of a Cadillac Eldorado which was reported stolen.

Three hours after the report of the rape, the police found the Cadillac Eldorado parked by the roadside and the accused sleeping inside the car. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was arrested and taken to the police station. Later that morning, he was arraigned for criminal possession of stolen property. At his arraignment, he was told that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing and if he cannot afford one, a lawyer can be provided for him but the accused refused to be represented by a lawyer.

Published on: June 27, 2012

Court Discusses Probable Cause for Blood Sample

by Stephen Bilkis

In August 1991, two police officers from Yonkers, New York were sent to investigate a reported rape and robbery which occurred in an apartment building. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the woman who claimed to have been raped told the detectives that she was raped at knifepoint. She gave the description of her attacker to the police including the attacker’s physical traits such as his height, approximate age, his body build, the clothes he wore, his race and even the way he smelled.

The detectives went to the basement of the building where the garbage chute emptied out into a dumpster and found clothes similar to the clothes described as worn by the attacker of the woman. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said near the dumpster there were also found some surgical gloves, a white panty hose tied in knots and a knife.

The police detectives asked the residents of the building if they knew any person in the building who fit the description given by the woman who was raped and they were led to the apartment of the accused.

Published on: June 26, 2012

Defendant Contends Incriminating Evidence From Prior Conviction Should Not be Included

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 24, 1977, a woman reported to the police that she had been raped that morning. One month after the reported rape, the District Attorney applied to the court to compel the accused to participate in a line up in connection with the investigation of the August 1977 rape. The application was denied by the court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said year later, on August 24, 1978, another woman from the same town reported a rape in the early morning. She said that a man who drove a Cadillac Eldorado had raped her. She memorized the license plate. The police checked the license plate and it matched the license plate of a Cadillac Eldorado which was reported stolen.

Three hours after the report of the rape, the police found the Cadillac Eldorado parked by the roadside and the accused sleeping inside the car. He was arrested and taken to the police station. Later that morning, he was arraigned for criminal possession of stolen property. At his arraignment, he was told that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing and if he cannot afford one, a lawyer can be provided for him but the accused refused to be represented by a lawyer.

Published on: June 26, 2012

Issue of Consent Discussed in Rape Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 21 May 2008, as amended on 28 May 2008, defendant was convicted by the Supreme Court, Bronx County of rape in the third degree, a criminal law violation. He was sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of 2 to 4 years.

The Ruling:

Published on: June 26, 2012

Court Discusses Offense of 3d Degree Sexual Abuse

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

According to a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer, the defendant was charged with robbery, larceny, assault (two counts), endangering the welfare of a child, and sexual abuse in the third degree; a six-count indictment on criminal law violations.

As the crimes were allegedly committed on 26 September 1967, the prosecution was under the new Penal Law, which was enacted in 1965, effective as of 1 September 1967.