Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

In this Criminal case, defendant, a 78 year old man, was convicted by plea of guilty of one count of Assault in the Second Degree and one count of Attempted Sexual Abuse in the First Degree. Thereafter, he was sentenced to a determinate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years with 5 years post-release supervision on the assault count and an indeterminate sentence of 2–4 years incarceration on the sexual abuse count, with those sentences to run concurrently. The Court’s review of the court file for this crime indicates that the Defendant repeatedly struck an 86 year old woman with a blunt object causing lacerations and a loss of consciousness. As the victim lost consciousness, she felt her attacker pull her pants down. When she awoke her pants and shoes had been removed. She had significant bruising on her hands and back and required surgery for an eye injury which occurred during the attack. She identified her attacker as a person she knew from the building she lived in and said he had lived there for about five years.

A New York Sex crimes attorney said that Defendant allegedly told the arresting police officer that he came out to the garden of the senior citizens housing complex where the assault occurred to get drunk and pass out. He also admitted that he knew the victim. When interviewed in preparation for his pre-sentence report, he denied his guilt but said he wanted his guilty plea to stand. He asserted that he had “blacked out” and that someone else had tried to rob the victim. During argument on the Original SORA Decision, the Defendant’s counsel asserted that the evidence against defendant was highly suspect and that despite his guilty plea and the complainant’s grand jury testimony, there was not reliable evidence that Defendant was guilty of a sex crime.

In order for a Defendant to obtain a modification of his risk level under SORA he must demonstrate that such a modification is justified by clear and convincing evidence. The Defendant’s previous RAI score and presumptive override are not any different now than they were at the time of the Original SORA Decision. To lower the Defendant’s risk level then, the Court would have to find that a departure from the presumptive risk level was warranted. Generally, a 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, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the RAI.

Continue reading

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, in an action, inter alia, to enjoin a public nuisance, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 15, 1989, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, directed them to pay a civil penalty in the sum of $68,700, compensatory damages in the sum of one dollar, and punitive damages in the sum of $100,000.

A Kings Prostitution Lawyer said that, this case arises out of allegations that the appellants used the subject premises for purposes of prostitution. As a result of a prior action commenced by the City of New York, a consent judgment was entered on May 22, 1985, permanently enjoining the defendant from using, maintaining or permitting the use of the subject premises for the purposes of prostitution or for any other nuisance and directing that the premises be sold within six months to a new owner who would not use the premises for prostitution.

A Kings Patronizing Prostitution Lawyer said that, thereafter, the City of New York commenced the instant action, alleging, inter alia, causes of action based upon the Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-701, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the Nuisance Abatement Law), and common-law nuisance. After a hearing where evidence was produced indicating that the subject premises continued to be used for prostitution, the court found that defendant had sold the property to the other defendant, but continued to manage the premises. Testimony indicated that defendant encouraged promoting prostitution from a vehicle parked nearby the premises.

Continue reading

Respondent was found to suffer from a Mental Abnormality under Article 10 at a jury trial. The evidence from that trial was made a part of the record of the instant proceeding. At the trial, the State presented the testimony of two psychologists who opined that the Respondent suffered from a Mental Abnormality. The State also presented the testimony of two parole officers and introduced documentary evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of a psychologist, who opined that the Respondent did not suffer from a Mental Abnormality.

A New York Criminal attorney said that during the trial, a psychologist witness provided a summary of the Respondent’s child, adolescent and adult history including his criminal history and history of disciplinary violations while incarcerated. Respondent’s childhood and adolescent history were also extensively outlined by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1978 in one case. The Second Circuit noted that its recounting of the early life of the Respondent was based on “sketchy records based on secondhand information, or facts furnished by the Respondent, whose reliability for accurately conveying information is questionable”.

In the Court’s view, however, even assuming that not every fact in the Second Circuit’s decision is completely accurate, the general outlines of Respondent’s life prior to age 17 are useful in understanding the origins of his anti-social behavior. The Court therefore has taken judicial notice of the Second Circuit’s decision and has used it in recounting what appear to have been some of the relevant events in Respondent’s life prior to age 17.

Continue reading

This is a proceeding maintained by the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York and by the District Attorneys of each of the five counties of the city in pursuance of section 22-a of the code of Criminal Procedure. An injunction is sought to restrain defendant, a book publisher, from selling and distributing ‘Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure’ popularly known as ‘Fanny Hill’ by John Cleland written about 1749.

The statute authorizes such an action as this by the public officials who have been joined as plaintiffs where a book is ‘obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent or disgusting’. After a trial, the court at Special Term dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed by a divided court and, finding that the book comes ‘within the proscription’ of section 22-a, granted the injunction and other relief sought by plaintiffs in full scope. From the resulting order, the publisher appeals before the court.

The court notes that the suppression of a book requires not only an expression of judgment by the court that it is so bad, in the view of the Judges, that it is offensive to community standards of decency as the Legislature has laid them down, but also that it is so bad that the constitutional freedom to print has been lost because of what the book contains. The court observes that history and tradition stand against the suppression of books.

Continue reading

This is an Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, and rape in the first degree, and sodomy in the first degree, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

The Court agreed with the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictments because they were lacking in specificity. The defendant was charged under two indictments with multiple counts of rape, sodomy and endangering the welfare of children, arising out of offenses which allegedly occurred between 1980 and 1985. Each count charged the defendant with an offense, alleged to have occurred “on or about and between August 1, 1984 and May 3, 1985”.

A New York Criminal Rape lawyer said that the defendant was convicted under 14 counts of this indictment. Of the three counts in another Indictment of which the defendant was convicted, one charged him with burglary in the first degree alleged to have occurred “on or about and between November 5, 1980 and December 31, 1981”, and the other two counts related to conduct occurring between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1981.

Continue reading

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant has issued a subpoena to a Broadcasting Companies for certain outtakes of a TV show regarding the instant sex crimes. The outtakes are alleged to contain statements of four witnesses that will be called by the government on their direct case. The Broadcasting Companies has moved to quash the subpoena. The other defendant has issued a subpoena to the Production Company, for all materials written or recorded of any interview with the complainant the latter has moved to quash the subpoena.

A Kings Sex Crime Lawyer said that, during the year 1993, the Broadcasting Companies was granted permission by the New York City Police Department to observe and film the workings of the New York City Police Department. It was preparing for a reality show about the New York City Police Department ultimately titled “NYPD 24/7.” Among the numerous stories that the Broadcasting Company was following was the homicide of one of the victims in this case. It followed and filmed the investigators in this case while the police tried to solve the sex crime. A break came when a person gave certain information to the police. Additionally, the police were able to connect the murder to an alleged rape/kidnapping. As a result of all the information gathered, the defendant was arrested.

A Kings Prostitution Lawyer said that, on July 13, 2004, an episode of NYPD 24/7 was aired containing taped interviews with the detectives in charge, the family of the victim and the informant. The defendant wishes to have all the unused film from the program to see if any of the witnesses will, while testifying for the People, contradict anything that the witness stated on the unused film. He seeks the outtakes for possible impeachment material. The defendant can neither identify any inconsistent statement nor identify a single piece of outtake that he will introduce into evidence during the trial or other proceeding.

Continue reading

On October 23, 1981 the criminal defendant was convicted of kidnapping in the first degree and related crimes. The defendant was sentenced to a term of 20 years to life imprisonment. Briefly, he and two others attempted to rob a man outside of the man’s apartment. The robbery was not successful and the intended victim was able to retreat back into his apartment, but in doing so he left his three-year-old daughter and his friend behind in the hallway. The friend talked his way out of the situation and left; the would-be robbers took the child and then concocted a scheme to blackmail the victim and his wife. But this effort was foiled as well, the men were arrested, and the child was recovered without harm.

None of the actions of the defendant or the other two men in any way contained or even intimated a sexual component. Nonetheless, upon his December 2001 release from prison to lifetime parole, the defendant was notified that the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) deems him to be a sex offender because, under the definition of kidnapping in the first degree, the victim of the kidnapping was less than seventeen years old and the offender is not the parent of the victim. Accordingly, he was told to appear in court so that his classification level could be determined. At that appearance, the defendant argued that because he was never accused of any form of sexual impropriety toward the child pornography or anyone else, applying the act to him was arbitrary and capricious and violated his constitutional rights.

By decision and order, the court determined that, pursuant to the statute, the defendant is subject to the classification and registration provisions of the Sex Offender Registration Act because his criminal act is among the enumerated crimes to which the act applies. A second hearing was ordered to determine what level of classification the defendant should be assigned. At that hearing the defendant, again through his appointed counsel, more specifically argued that application of the SORA to him violated his constitutional rights under the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Ex Post Facto Clauses.

Continue reading

The child in this case was a 14 years old girl, who underwent a medical examination, and revealed that she was 12 weeks pregnant. At first, the girl denied that she had been sexually active or that she was being sexually abused at home. She later claimed that she had been raped at school by a classmate.

The girl eventually told the investigating police officers that she had consensual, unprotected intercourse with a 14 year old boy. She explained that she lied about being a rape victim because she did not want her parents to know that she was having sex. After she gave the police a written withdrawal about the accusation, the case was closed.

The girl turned 18 years of age. Over a year later, when she was 19 years old, she informed the police that she had been sexually assaulted years earlier by her step-grandfather and her previous statement aren’t true.

Continue reading

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 14, 1978, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Kings Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, in the circumstances of this case, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the references to 696 Washington Avenue as a “main distribution point” for heroin and the undercover officer’s statement that he “went back to purchase some more narcotics.” Both statements were the subject of objections followed by curative instructions, after which no further objection or motion for a mistrial was made. Thus, the court “must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction”. As to the third claim of error testimony that a second man entered the building, gave the defendant money and requested “halves” not only was there no objection to the testimony but on cross-examination defendant deliberately elicited a repetition of the testimony concerning the second man and used it in summation to imply that the undercover officer was confused as to who had actually sold him the heroin. Thus, there is no reason to invoke interest of justice analysis to reach this particular issue.

The issue in this case is whether the record demonstrates the existence of such prejudice as to have effectively denied the defendant a fair trial.

Continue reading

A man pleaded guilty to information charging him to one count of computer transmission of material involving sexual exploitation of minors. The aforementioned charge arose from allegations that the man had transmitted via the internet three photographs of teenagers engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The man was sentenced to home detention for a period of fifteen months and five years’ probation from the child pornography offense, and was directed to undergo mental health treatment during the entire term of his probation

.

The board of examiners of sex offenders informed the man that since he had been convicted of a sex offense in another state yet he resides in New York State, he may be required to register as a sex offender under the provisions of the sex offender registration act. The letter invited the man to submit any materials that he wished the board to consider in making their determination.