Published on:

Court Orders New Trial in Rape Case


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.

Consequently, the appellants made an offer of proof to the trial court about the admission of evidence of three similar false rape complaints previously made by the complainant. The evidence presents a statement of a witness that the complainant’s father had informed him that complainant had told her father that a former employer of the complainant had attempted to rape her. On the second complaint, a witness statement revealed that the complainant had come to the witness’s door one midnight asking for help and alleging that someone had attempted to rape her. Lastly, 14 police reports concerning an attempted rape of the complainant was reported by the complainant to the police and the subsequent police investigation. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said that consequently, the statement of the first witness was properly excluded since it is hearsay and the statement of the second witness was relevant and acceptable.

Moreover, certain record of a hospital was prepared in the regular course of business while the complainant was a patient at that hospital. The appellants were permitted to establish that the complainant had been a patient at the hospital for about a month following a suicide attempt and that she had undergone shock therapy and that for a month prior to April she had been seeing a psychologist.

The appellants also presented an affidavit of a 18-year-old employee of one company, stated that he saw a man who, he had been told, was complainant’s father, beating her with his fists. He was aware that the complainant was sexually promiscuous. When the complainant was brought to the emergency room of a hospital, her head was tender and bruised but her nose was clear and when the complainant returned to the hospital after the day of the incident, her nose was broken. The appellants contended and attempted to introduce evidence that the complainant’s injuries were either self-inflicted or the result of her having been beaten by her father. Apparently, the error in prohibiting the witness from testifying was compounded by the trial court’s refusal to permit cross-examination of the complainant and her father as to how and when her nose was broken.

The complainant was the principal witness for the trial and her credibility and emotional and mental history were substantial factors at the trial. She testified that one of the appellant had telephoned her several times and that she returned his calls. The man asked her to come to his house, which were several blocks away, so that they could discuss a new course being offered at college. The complainant went to the man’s home, entered through the front door, and sat down at the kitchen table. The complainant didn’t see anyone else in the house and after a short conversation she asked the man for a glass of water. When she drank the water she started getting sleepy, dizzy and tired. The next thing the complainant remembered was that she was in the man’s basement being pushed onto and against a couch. As she was struggling, the two other men entered the basement from a back room. The complainant started screaming, protesting and crying, but the three men held her down and ripped off her shoes, socks, dungarees and underwear. The complaint’s testimony then followed with a long, lurid and detailed recital of vicious, savage and sadistic sexual assaults and abuse including unnatural sex and bestiality.

The complainant then testified that when the opportunity presented itself, she ran, naked from the waist down, out the back door of the basement and stood, paralyzed, behind some bushes in an alleyway. From that hiding spot she saw the three men leaving the house in an attempt to find her. As she was watching the three men, she ran towards a house with a light on, knocked on the door and stumbled into the home of a couple. Although portions of the police reports of the detectives tend to support parts of the complainant’s testimony. There also appear therein startling, baffling and important contradictions and discrepancies.

It was partially revealed on cross-examination, and it is documented by the transcript, that complainant lied when she testified at a preliminary hearing. She then swore under oath that she had been a virgin prior to the alleged rape and that she had never been treated or institutionalized for a mental illness.

The appellants contended that the complainant either instigated or consented to any sexual activity which occurred. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said they alleged that the rape complaint was the result of the anger and humiliation she suffered when a water balloons that she purposely placed in her bra, fell and burst upon the floor causing the taunting, scornful and infuriating laughter of the three men.

The court ordered that the decision appealed is reversed and a new trial is ordered.

Consequently, another judge agrees with the decision of the court that the decision must be reversed and a new trial was ordered. The judge conclude that the appellants did not receive a fair trial primarily because the defense was improperly restricted in the exploration of complainant’s mental and emotional history as disclosed by the records of the hospital. While the hospital records itself were properly refused admission without redaction of those matters relating to complainant’s sexual history and the appellant’s counsel should have been permitted to fully explore those portions which bore on the credibility and emotional and mental history of complainant and allowed broader latitude in cross-examination upon the hospital records.

Children and woman are prone to abuse and most of the time, these persons are abused by their own guardian, parents or even partner. If you suffered and felt humiliated from a sexual abuse, you can call the NY Sex Crime Lawyers. If you are a parent and you want to explore the legal options in a lawsuit, call the NY Criminal Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

Posted in:
Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information