Sex Crimes

Published on: April 6, 2012

Family Court and Criminal Court have Concurrent Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Whenever an incident of domestic violence occurs, the courts and law enforcement officers are required to file reports and take other actions without discretion. One of the prescribed actions that is required of officers is that they must make an arrest if the domestic violence occurred in the presence of a child under the age of 18. If the child is a witness to the domestic violence, the parents are charged with either child abuse or child neglect depending on the situation. While this appears to be a good idea on paper, it can lead to long-term issues that may not be appropriate in some situations.

Sometimes, isolated incidents of domestic violence occur in situations where it will never happen again. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the concept of creating a law requiring the parents be charged for an argument in the presence of a child is wrought with problems. Usually, police and prosecutors use good judgment in cases. However, sometimes it appears that only poor judgment is present. In many cases, criminal charges of child neglect are placed on parents who do not deserve to be charged. When a victim of domestic violence is charged with child neglect, it only creates a situation where that victim may not report additional incidents of domestic violence for fear of losing their child. The court tends to recognize that the intent of the law is to protect the children in homes where violence and fighting is the norm rather than the exception. Still, cases where the incident was isolated manage to get through the cracks. When that happens, it is usually family court that notices it.

Family court handles most of the domestic violence actions, but they have concurrent jurisdiction if a criminal offense occurred during the incident. In some cases, the criminal case is charged, but later dismissed because it was not supported by facts in the court. A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said the problem is that Family Court may have another case pending that the criminal charge affects. In one case, which occurred in Suffolk County, New York on March 26, 2010, a father requested an appeal to overturn an action of family court.

Published on: April 6, 2012

Domestic Violence Cases are Difficult for Everyone Involved

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic Violence situations are difficult for everyone who is involved in handling them. Family dynamics can be extremely volatile. When domestic violence occurs, there are many people involved. Family Violence Laws encompass past or current spouses; children or step-children, parents and children, foster parents and foster children, siblings, and anyone who has ever lived or is living in the same residence. This is a broad definition of the relationships that are included in the definition of the domestic violence statutes. Domestic violence laws are created not just to deal with crimes that have already occurred; they are expected to intervene to prevent future assaults from happening. However, whenever a law is created that is expected to prevent future offenses before they have occurred, abuses to that law often follow. Many people are arrested in domestic violence situations who did not need to be arrested. Many are arrested who do need to be arrested, but still deserve a fair hearing in a court of law.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that often police officers are called upon to enter a home and restrain one or more of the parties involved in the altercation. When this happens, it can be a dangerous situation for the police officers. In April of 2006, a New York City police officer responded to a domestic violence call in Albany County. During the course of that call, the officer had to struggle with and restrain a male subject. The officer in question and his partner ended up against a table which collapsed under the weight of the three people. The subject had pushed one of the officers onto the table before the officer in question was able to hand cuff him. The officer sustained a debilitating injury to his right shoulder. In July of 2007, he applied to the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System to obtain accidental injury retirement benefits. The Hearing officer determined that this officer was not able to obtain these benefits because the injury could not be considered an accidental injury because it occurred in the normal course of performing his ordinary employment duties.

The officer argued that the collapse of the table was not an expected ordinary course of his employment duties. The state did not agree and refused his petition. The state maintains that responding to domestic violence calls and restraining unruly participants is a normal course of a police officer’s duties. If that officer in catastrophically injured in the course of those duties, the state does not feel that they should be responsible. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said the Officer appealed this decision. The State Court of Appeals upheld the verdict.

Published on: April 4, 2012

Court Rules Divorce Case Claiming Domestic Violence

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties herein were married in a religious ceremony on 1 June 2008, in Aventura, Dade County, Florida. There is one (1) child of this marriage who was born in August 2009.

The husband commenced the instant action for divorce in Kings County, New York and for custody of the minor child on or about 14 June 2011. At the time the action for divorce was commenced, the parties were living apart for several months.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the wife instituted an action for divorce in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida and filed and received an ex-parte injunction on 18 March 2011 enjoining either party from removing the child from the State of Florida and allowing supervised visits with the child. The wife predicated her original petition on the grounds of domestic violence and the husband’s allegedly ordering the wife to take the child and reside with the maternal grandparents in Boca Raton, Florida. Her petition in Florida has since been amended on 5 July 2011 to include claims for both spousal and child support and alleging assault, battery and cyber stalking by electronic communication in Florida.

Published on: April 4, 2012

Court Discusses Violation of Order of Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

On 22 February 1997, the defendant, after a parental visit, brought his children directly to his then wife (now former wife) in contravention to a court order of protection (hereinafter COOP). Thereafter, a verbal and physical confrontation occurred between the defendant and his wife. The COOP provided that the defendant was to return his children to the local police station.

The defendant was indicted and tried for crimes involved in this incident and another.

On 24 March 1999 after a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of assault in the second degree, two counts of assault in the third degree, and two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree.

Published on: April 3, 2012

Does the State’s failure to increase the compensation rates for assigned counsel violates the constitutional and statutory right to meaningful and effective representation

by Stephen Bilkis

A Lawyers’ Association filed for a rate increase to the State for their in and out of court work. The issue is whether the State’s failure to increase the compensation rates for assigned counsel violates the constitutional and statutory right to meaningful and effective representation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that it does and results in obstructing the judiciary’s ability to function, and declares the law that set those rates are unconstitutional as applied. The court also directed the payment of $90 an hour without distinction between in- and out-of-court work, and without ceilings on total per case compensation, until the governing body acts to address the issue.

Based from the evidence, the grim reality that children and indigent adults in the State Family Court, Criminal Court, and Criminal Term of Supreme Court are at unreasonable risk of being subjected to a process that is neither swift nor deliberate, and fails to confirm the confidence and reliability in the system of justice. It is a direct result of the law-making body’s failure to provide adequate compensation to the assigned counsel. The right of a criminal accused party or Family Court complainant to interpose an attorney between himself and the State with its considerable power and resources is a cherished principle, zealously protected by the State courts. The State continues to ignore its constitutional obligation to the poor by failing to increase the assigned counsel rates that result, in many cases, in denial of counsel, delay in the appointment of counsel, and less than meaningful and effective legal representation. Accordingly, the court declares portions of section of the County Law, section of the Family Court Act and section of the Judiciary Law to be unconstitutional as applied. These statutes were enacted without a mechanism for automatic periodic increases, therefore requiring recurrent visitation by the law-making body. The initial rate set in 1965 of $15 an hour for in-court work and $10 an hour for out-of-court work has been increased twice to $25 and $15 in 1978, and $40 and $25 in 1985. The last increase was 17 years ago.

Published on: March 11, 2012

Defendant Charged with Robbery Claims They Did not have a Weapon

by Stephen Bilkis

Vincent Knowles was charged with one count of robbery in the first degree. He admitted in the hearing before the court that he did steal money, a wallet, jewelry and subway tokens from a Henry Laylock. He also testified that he placed his hand in his pocket, which looked like he had a gun so Mr. Laylock will give him his valuables. The fact was he was unarmed. He pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said if a person displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm when he forcibly steals a property, he is guilty of robbery in the second degree according to the law.

The Trial Court had accepted Mr. Knowles plea, and the case was given to the Supreme Court Appellate Division for review. The Court of Appeals in their review said they need to be one to check if the letter of the law was correctly interpreted in this case. The law states a person who “displays what appears to be” a firearm during a robbery is guilty of robbery in the second degree. The focus they said is to be on the word appears instead of display. In this case, Mr. Knowles did not display anything as his hand was in his pocket during the robbery. In his testimony, he admitted he pretended it was a gun.

Before any revision to the Penal Law, the only law which pertained to firearms was with the robbery in the first degree, according to a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer. This is when a person is armed with a dangerous weapon when committing a robbery. It was not defined by the unrevised law, but the court had always ruled to show the weapon needs to be working and loaded for it to be deemed dangerous. If the gun is inoperable and not loaded, it fell on the robbery in the third degree. So even in the previous statute, this was not a robbery in the first degree.

Published on: March 9, 2012

Defendant Contends They Did Not Carry a Weapon During Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

On the afternoon of May 22, 2008, John Grant walked in Staten Island Bank. He went to the teller in one of the stations and gave a note that said, “I have a gun, Fill the bag. Don’t say anything or I’ll shoot.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the teller, in her sworn statement, said she saw a firearm and just followed the instruction give to her. She got all the money in her station and placed it inside Mr. Grant’s bag. She handed the bag back to Mr. Grant, with $1,810 in it but kept the demand note. After Mr. Grant left, she locked the doors, and she informed the police of what happened. The police arrived at the scene and the detectives who responded took the video from the bank’s surveillance. They got still pictures from the video and after an investigation that lasted for four months, found Mr. Grant, and placed him in a line up for the teller to identify. The teller did identify him as the bank robber.

Mr. Grant filed an omnibus motion where he asked the court to dismiss the one count of first-degree robbery and on one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree. An omnibus motion is motions bundled together. He said it was not enough to say he was guilty of robbery in the first degree just because of the note, which said he was in possession of a weapon, that it was loaded, and it could be used against the teller. In the jury trial, the people said the possession of a dangerous instrument was not required in the determination of a first-degree robbery. The jury found Mr. Grant guilty of one count of robbery in the first degree and one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

The Supreme Court was asked to review the case, and in their examination of the transcript of the hearing affirmed the charge of grand larceny in the fourth degree. They also lowered the charge for the robbery from the fist degree to the third degree. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the mere statement of a person he has a gun, and he would shoot is not enough to support the charge for a robbery in the first degree, according to a New York Robbery Lawyer who read the decision of the Supreme Court.

Published on: March 9, 2012

Defendant Contends Insufficient Evidence for Robbery Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

Stanley Hedgeman was accused of robbery in the second degree, and the Trial court had ruled he was guilty. Mr. Hedgeman appealed against this ruling, saying it should have been dismissed because there was insufficient proof presented to show he committed the robbery while “aided by another person actually present.” This was Mr. Hedgeman’s main argument.

The Court of Appeals said the question they are asked to answer is whether Mr. Hedgeman, whose only participation was to wait outside the bank and drive the getaway vehicle is guilty of robbery in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer mentioned the court further asked if a person who the victims did not know or seen, be convicted of robbery in the third degree for the crime of aggravated robbery in the second degree? They said to determine this, they must first interpret the words of the law that says, “aided by another person actually present.” Does it mean a person who was physically there or anyone who was actively part of the robbery even if not where the crime happened?

In the trial, the only evidence that the people was able to present was the testimony of the police officer who conducted the interview of the one who did the robbery. The office said the driver was identified by the accused bank robber, and the two discussed the robbery before it happened. According to the court, this does not mean the driver was close enough to be actually present or adequately involved. The testimony of the assistant bank manager, said a Long Island Criminal Lawyer, only said that he saw the suspect get in a car, and someone else was driving. He was not able to identify the driver, so it could have been another person.

Published on: March 8, 2012

Court Rules on Robbery That Resulted in Death of Victim

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged and convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree and two counts of robbery in the first degree. This was because he was part of a frustrated robbery where the victim died from a gunshot wound to the neck. One of the testimonies in the hearing said the defendant was part of a group of about fifteen teenagers. They approached the the victim, before he could enter a grocery store. It appeared that the defendant was known in the area for shoplifting and selling what he got. The group waited while he was in the grocery. The crowd moved to the bleachers of a recreation center nearby. One of the teenagers showed off a gun to the group.

Less than an hour later, six of the teenagers went back near the grocery store, and the defendant announced he was going to snatch the victim’s bag. Two of the six left, saying they did not want any part of it. A short time later, the defendant went out of the grocery store and along with his three other companions attacked the victim. The defendant was able to get free and hit the victim with a can while holding him against a wall. He then got his bag and said nothing will be taken from him. A shot was fired, said a New York Criminal Lawyer, and the defendant ran with his bag and the four on his heels. People said they heard about six to eight shots at around the time of the chase. The police did not find a bag with clothing, but found a knit hat and sweatshirt near the grocery store.

The defendant argued that it is impossible to have an attempted robbery in the first degree because one of the requirements is an unintended result of causing physical injury when a robbery is committed. They said that the attempt to commit a crime with an unintended result is not recognized by the law. The court changed the charge to attempted robbery in the third degree.

Published on: March 8, 2012

Court Rules on Two Robbery Cases

by Stephen Bilkis

In two unrelated cases of robbery, the same question was asked of the Court of Appeals. The question is whether the evidence plus their display of what appeared to be guns while committing a robbery enough to charge them robbery in the first degree. The first case is the people vs. Lopez, and the second is the people vs. Mendez. A New York Criminal Lawyer said both defendants were convicted of robbery in the first degree, which they appealed.

In the case of Lopez, the robbery took place on a New York street. he was with another man when he approached the victim with two other companions and declared it was a stick up. What they demanded was the victim’s radio. In the victim’s testimony, he said when the robbery was announced, the defendant placed his hand inside his pocket, as if he had a gun. The victim gave his radio, after which the defendant and the other man went in a car driven by a third man to leave the scene. He knew the defendant because he had played basketball with him several years before. The day after the incident, the victim saw the defendant on the street and identified him to the police as the one who held him up. He was convicted of robbery in the first degree for what appeared to be a gun in his pocket and robbery in the second degree on the theory he did it with another person.

The Mendez’ case happened in The Bronx. Mr. Mendez was standing near another man who was seated and when he passed, he was grabbed by the defendant from behind and pushed against a wall. He testified that the defendant demanded for everything he had and took his watch, ripped the chain from his neck and took $80 from his back pocket. The other man who was seated had his right hand under his shirt while watching them. The victim said he heard Mr. Mendez say to the other man not to show the gun to him. According to what a Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer read, it happened some time while the robbery was taking place. In this case, the victim knew the defendant as he saw him at different times at a store near where he worked as well as by his tattoos.