New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: June 21, 2014

Application of Mackell

by Stephen Bilkis

Application of Mackell

Court Discusses Whether the District Attorney was Permitted to Request that the Defendant Shave for a Line up

The District Attorney made an application to the court requesting that the respondent be permitted to shave his beard under the direction of the prison warden for the purposes of appearing in a line-up. The respondent was alleged to be one of two men to have committed robbery. At the time of the arrest the respondent was clean shaven but since he was incarcerated the defendant grew out his facial hair and refused to shave. The District Attorney asserted that the respondent would be unrecognizable with his beard and he was using it as a disguise which would result in identification being difficult if not impossible.

Published on: June 20, 2014

2004 peer-reviewed Morgan Study

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal case, defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of placing a six inch knife to the throat of a thirteen year old girl and then ripping the chain off her neck. The victim was the only eyewitness to the crime, which lasted only seconds. No other evidence, aside from the victim’s later identification, connected the defendant to the crime. The defendant’s principal contention on appeal was that the now retired trial judge abused his discretion by denying his application to elicit expert testimony with respect to the reliability of eyewitness identifications without first holding a hearing.

A Nassau County Criminal attorney said that in June 2005, a 13-year-old girl was on her way home from school, was descending well-lit stairs into the subway station when a man whom she did not know approached her and asked for “some change.” This man stood face-to-face with her, about two feet away. She initially did not think he intended to harm her and was not afraid. Looking him squarely in the face, she said she had no change.

A Nassau County Criminal lawyer said that after the victim “took a couple of steps forward,” the stranger wheeled in front of her, placed a knife with a six-inch blade and “a big curve on the end” near her throat, and asked her “a couple of times” to hand over her necklace, a gold chain with a locket. As this man stood close by her, she was “looking at his face”; she was “really scared” and “didn’t know what to do.” When she refused his demand, screaming “No,” he ripped the chain off her neck, and fled up the stairs. This entire encounter was fleeting.

Published on: June 20, 2014

People v Bain

by Stephen Bilkis

People v Bain

Court Discusses Whether the Evidence was Legally Insufficient for Conviction

The defendant indicted and convicted for manslaughter in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, and driving while intoxicated after an accident that resulted in his wife’s death. The appealed the conviction on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient and that the People failed to establish the chain of custody for the blood evidence recovered.

Published on: June 19, 2014

Respondent has no insight into his various mental illnesses

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a recommitment proceeding wherein defendant was at the scene of a drug raid for the purposes of purchasing marijuana. He refused the order of a police officer to leave and was arrested for disorderly conduct. As he was being placed under arrest, he pulled out a six-inch hunting knife and attempted to stab the officer. As a result, he was also charged with attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Following arraignment on these charges, he was released on his own recognizance and then engaged in various criminal acts in New Jersey, which resulted in his arrest and confinement at a Psychiatric Center.

A Suffolk County Criminal attorney said that during his confinement, which lasted from May 1984 until April 1986, defendant reported aural and visual hallucinations, claiming in one instance that he was seeing snakes, bugs and images of Satan and was hearing voices telling him to get a gun and blow his brains out. He also claimed that he communicated with God, worked for God, was God, that he feared that Satan would kill him because he was an archangel, and that he was depressed and wanted to die.

As a result of the observations as well as examinations of respondent, he was diagnosed as a chronic undifferentiated schizophrenic with acute exacerbation. His treating psychiatrist prescribed a high dosage of anti-psychotic medication. The doctors agreed that he presented a danger to himself and others and thus, despite the medication’s beneficial effects, required continued hospitalization on a closed ward until he was stabilized on it.

Published on: June 18, 2014

He filed those documents knowing that they were forged.

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant man contends that the evidence against him was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewed in a light most favorable to the People, the record establishes that a woman, the complaining witness, lent money to the defendant. Concededly the defendant did not repay any part of the loan. Although the lender was motivated by a desire that the criminal defendant purchase a certain grocery store with the loan proceeds, the defendant’s failure to do so does not change the nature of the transaction.

The essence of the crime of larceny by embezzlement is the conversion by the embezzler of property belonging to another which has been entrusted to the embezzler to hold on behalf of the owner. There is a distinction between the refusal to pay a valid debt and the crime of larceny by embezzlement. If the money was not given to the criminal defendant in trust, he was free to use it for any purpose. On the record before us, the People failed to establish a fiduciary arrangement. As the record indicates, an interest bearing loan was intended by the parties, and upon delivery of the funds to the defendant they became his property. Thus there was no misappropriation of property from the owner and the mere failure to pay one’s debts is not a crime.

Accordingly the defendant’s conviction must be reversed and the indictment must be dismissed since the evidence is legally insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of larceny by embezzlement.

Published on: June 18, 2014

4 of the youths were subsequently indicted by the Nassau County Grand Jury in July 1969

by Stephen Bilkis

In this Criminal case, defendants filed a motion for an order dismissing this indictment. The defendants contend the doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable and would warrant a dismissal of these proceedings.

A Nassau County Criminal attorney said that in June 1969, five youths were arraigned upon a complaint in the First District Court, Nassau County, New York, charged with violation of New York State Penal Law § 105.The said defendants and each of them and each acting in concert with and aided and abetted by each other, with intent that conduct constituting a felony be performed did each agree with the other to engage in or cause performance of such conduct, to wit: the said defendants with the intent to violate § 130.35 of the Penal Law of the State of New York when by forcible compulsion they engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant.’

4 of the youths were subsequently indicted by the Nassau County Grand Jury in July 1969 for the crimes of Rape in the First Degree and Sexual Abuse in the First Degree and arraigned in the Nassau County Court. The 5th boy was less than 16 years of age at the time of the alleged criminal acts and was charged with being a juvenile delinquent in the Family Court of Nassau County.

Published on: June 18, 2014

Article 240 of the C.P.L.

by Stephen Bilkis

These are two unrelated proceedings joined for the purpose of this decision due to common questions of law and common prayers for relief under Section 240.70 of the Criminal Procedure Law. This decision is one of first impression dealing with the permissible sanctions for failure to comply with a Demand for Discovery under revised Article 240 of the Criminal Procedure Law (effective January 1, 1980).

A Queens Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, this case is a December 18, 1979 arrest for Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (Sec. 155.30 Penal Law), Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Second Degree (Sec. 165.45 Penal Law), Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree (Sec. 145.00 Penal Law) and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle (Sec. 165.05 Penal Law). The defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint for the above offenses on December 18, 1979. On January 31, 1980, the charges were reduced to Petit Larceny (Sec. 155.25 Penal Law) and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree (Sec. 165.40 Penal Law), with the other two misdemeanor charges remaining. The defendant was arraigned on the reduced charges, and at that point was being prosecuted by information (a misdemeanor complaint coupled with a supporting deposition executed pursuant to Sec. 100.20 of the C.P.L. resulting in a conversion to an information under Sec. 170.65(1) of the C.P.L. 1). The case was a proper one for a demand for discovery since it was a prosecution by information as required by Sec. 240.20(1). 2

A Queens Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, at the initial arraignment and until March 24, 1980, the defendant was represented by the office of a Legal Aid Society. On the latter date, as a result of an application by the legal aid’s office, an attorney was assigned pursuant to Section 18-B of the County Law. Said attorney has made the instant motion, based upon the following chronology.

Published on: June 17, 2014

Penal Law § 70.25(1)(a)

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), and grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Suffolk County Grand larceny attorney said that in 1986, the defendant committed or attempted to commit a number of armed robberies at various locations in Suffolk County. Thereafter, the defendant was stopped by the police in Queens County on an unrelated matter and was subsequently charged in Queens with inter alia, criminal possession of a sawed-off shotgun and criminal possession of a stolen vehicle. As it happened, the weapon had been used in the Suffolk robberies and the vehicle had been stolen during the course of the last robbery.

The defendant pleaded guilty in Queens County to criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of one to three years imprisonment. He was thereafter arraigned in Suffolk County on the instant charges. At the time of the trial, he had served 20 months in prison on the Queens County conviction.

Published on: June 17, 2014

People v Bici

by Stephen Bilkis

People v Bici

Court Discusses Whether the Defendant was Prejudiced with the Admission of an Abstract into Evidence

The defendant was arrested of driving while intoxicated, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle. He was arrested after the police officer observed the criminal defendant weaving out of lanes and caused another driver to take evasive actions because of his driving. The defendant was pulled over by a police officer who discovered that the defendant had alcohol on his breath, slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. The defendant admitted to the police officer that he could drink and drive when the officer asked him if he was drinking. He was asked for his driver’s license and he provided the officer with a license from Connecticut. An investigation showed that the defendant had lost his driving privileges in New York a mere three days prior for driving while impaired DUI. The defendant was arrested and taken to testing facility. At the facility the defendant revealed that he would not submit to a chemical test. He was given the refusal warning and still refused to submit to the test. The defendant agreed to perform a series of coordination tests which were videotaped and both the arresting officer and the officer that administered the test were present. The tests concluded that the defendant was intoxicated. The defendant was requested that his arrest-scene statements, his refusal to submit to chemical testing, and a videotape of his physical coordination tests be suppressed as they were a product of an unlawful stop and arrest. The defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence was denied.

Published on: June 16, 2014

Appellate Division nor the Court of Appeals has reconciled the issue.

by Stephen Bilkis

On the evening, the defendant and three of his associates were engaged in a business transaction on a busy street in Queens County. The business being conducted was the illegal sale of cocaine and the purported buyer was an undercover police officer. Arrested shortly after the sale by a police field team, the defendant was found to be in possession of ten dollars of pre-recorded buy money and two additional packets of cocaine.

A Queens County Criminal lawyer said that the defendant was charged with the crime of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, a “B” felony which then carried a maximum indeterminate prison term of 8 -25 years. However, due to successful pre-trial plea negotiations undertaken by his attorney, the defendant, in February 1991, was offered and then accepted a highly favorable plea bargain: the defendant pled guilty to the lesser included offense of Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and was promised a jail sentence of only six months, together with five years of probation.

In May 1991, the defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea. Thereafter, a Violation of Probation was filed against the defendant by the Dept. Of Probation; due to the defendant’s subsequent non-appearance in court, a bench warrant was issued. In July 1993, the defendant was returned on the warrant, and thereafter, the defendant pled guilty to the Violation of Probation. The defendant’s probation was revoked and resentenced the defendant to a definite sentence of one year.