This is a case for the sex crime of obscenity where the defendants filed a motion to suppress certain evidence presented during the trial. In the motion, they raised as a contention that the prosecution was stopped from introducing evidence for acts of sodomy since there was a previous acquittal of the defendants for the offense of consensual sodomy.
A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the surrounding facts of the case were that the appellants had been earlier charged of consensual sodomy and promotion of obscenity for performing in a show participated by the defendants. After trial, the parties charged were acquitted for the sex crime of consensual sodomy but a hung jury resulted for the charge of promoting obscenity.
A retrial was processed for the felony of promoting obscenity and, during the trial, the prosecution showed evidence that included testimony in relation to the alleged acts of sodomy. Based on the ground that the there was acquittal granted to the appellants for the consensual sodomy, such testimony relating thereto should not be presented as evidence since it would constitute double jeopardy and constructive estoppel.
The court ruled that the two offenses charged against the felons were two distinct sex crimes. As defined by statute, consensual sodomy is “when (an individual) engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person” while obscenity in the second degree is “when, knowing its content and character, he ‘produces, presents or directs an obscene performance or participates in a portion thereof which is obscene or which contributes to its obscenity.’”
A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that hence, there was obscenity for participating in an obscene performance known to the person and there was consensual sodomy by engaging in deviate sexual intercourse. The two acts are entirely distinct and different from each other where the former has an element of knowledge of the obscene content in the performance while the latter pertains to the sexual act itself. Therefore, they are two different and separate felonies.
In a court decision, it reasoned “that the prior judgment of acquittal in the former prosecution did not negate the facts which were the basis of the second prosecution, and there was no fact involved in the former prosecution that was essential to a conviction in the latter case.” As applied to the case in issue, the decision of acquittal to the charge of consensual sodomy do not serve to wipe out the happening of certain acts being tried in another case, namely, the sex crime of obscenity. Constructive estoppels was not applicable to the evidence presented by the prosecution because the testimony would not affect the prior acquittal of the defendants for consensual sodomy since the facts being established is for a separate felony of obscenity.
A Nassau Sex Crimes Lawyer said that as clearly set forth in the jurisprudence decided by the court, “the test of double jeopardy is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act, but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same offense. An act may be an offense against two statutes. If one statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution under the other.” Thus, the allegation of the existence of double jeopardy raised by the accused was not accepted by the court since, although the evidence introduced pertains to the same act, the felony charged is different from the previous acquittal.
Considering that the act in issue resulted to two separate sex crimes, any evidence presented to the first offense that resulted to an acquittal cannot be barred and considered inadmissible for another criminal trial so long as it is a competent evident. This situation often occurs to felonies having concurrent and intimately related facts that would constitute introduction of the same proofs although for different charges and trials.
Accordingly, a Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said that the court concluded that the testimony sought to be suppressed in the motion filed by the defendants is admissible and competent and, consequently, the motion was denied.
If you are charge of sex crimes in court, then you must employ the services of a criminal lawyer that could provide you with legal services during the litigation process. Stephen Bilkis and Associates have rape attorneys that are capable in handling serious crimes with severe penalties. The criminal lawyers have important role to ensure that all plausible defenses and legal options be given to you before the court and in the course of the trial.