Articles Posted in Criminal Proceedure

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer reports that DWI in NY: Driving While Intoxicated – VTL 1192.3 Driving While Intoxicated is a dangerous habit among the drivers in the country. It is said that it is not just dangerous; the law likewise punished the drivers who are found to be intoxicated while driving. Driving While Intoxicated is just a part of crimes which are punishable while driving, the law also provides for the following crimes which can be violated while driving – DWI (Driving While Intoxicated), DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired) and DUI (Driving Under the Influence) – but regardless of the particular offense in New York (both NYC and Westchester), prosecutors and judges take these charges very seriously.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that we have handled numerous DWIs, DWAIs and DUIs here in our firm, whether they are charged as VTL 1192.1, VTL 1192.2, VTL 1192.2-a or VTL 1192.3. A particular question which a layman frequently asked us is “how can I be charged with DWI if there is no breathalyzer or intoxilizer that indicates how much alcohol I had in my system?” In answering their question, we first ask for the circumstances surrounding their problem. Once we already determined the main problem, we give them an advice which will benefit them. In the question stated above, the answer is quite simple. As we call it in the criminal law field, a person can be held liable for DWI even without a chemical test. This can be done by using the observation of the arresting officer based on the appearance of the driver and if indeed the latter was intoxicated. This is also known as the “Common Law” DWI.

With the use of the personal observation of the arresting officer, it is different from the forms of DWI using a chemical test. In VTL 1192.2 which requires a reading of alcohol in a person’s blood to be .08 of one per centum or more, a person is guilty of Driving While Intoxicated pursuant to “Common Law” VTL 1192.3 if they operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer the appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered May 24, 1977, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress statements.

Judgment reversed, on the law, motion granted, plea vacated, and case remitted to the County Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

A New York Robbery Lawyer said that on February 18, 1976 the defendant and his accomplice, EF, entered the Tru-Value Gas Station in Farmingdale, Long Island, and ordered the 16-year-old attendant to hand over all of the money. The attendant gave them the money in the cash register. At this point, EF ordered the boy to kneel down facing away from the robbers. EF then shot him and the boy died shortly thereafter.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered May 24, 1977, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress statements.

Judgment reversed, on the law, motion granted, plea vacated, and case remitted to the County Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

A New York Murder Lawyer said that on February 18, 1976 the defendant and his accomplice, EF, entered the Tru-Value Gas Station in Farmingdale, Long Island, and ordered the 16-year-old attendant to hand over all of the money. The attendant gave them the money in the cash register. At this point, EF ordered the boy to kneel down facing away from the robbers. EF then shot him and the boy died shortly thereafter.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to the records, the offender, indicted for the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree (six counts), grand larceny in the third degree (three counts), petit larceny (one count), criminal tampering in the second degree (five counts), and theft of services (five counts), brings this omnibus motion to (1) inspect the grand jury minutes and dismiss the indictment due to insufficient evidence before the grand jury; (2) to dismiss specific counts in the indictment because they are duplications of and inconsistent with other counts and (3) to dismiss the theft of services counts on the ground that the presumption created by section 165.15 of the Penal Law is unconstitutional.

The counts charged in the indictment arise out of the theft of approximately 3,391,000 cubic feet of gas from a Union Gas Company. The theft of gas was accomplished through bypasses, pieces of pipe attached to the gas company’s lines, which allow one who is not a gas customer to obtain gas by tapping gas company lines and receiving free service.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court has read the grand jury minutes and finds that the evidence adduced before the grand jury was legally sufficient and that there was reasonable cause to believe that he committed the crimes charged in each count.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that from the records, in a Criminal Court Complaint, the People assert that a Police Officer observed the offenders at the Subway station. The officer allegedly watched the offenders “acting in concert” receive United States currency from four individuals, “in exchange for which the offenders swiped a Metrocard through the subway turnstile for each of these individuals, thereby allowing the said individuals to enter the transit system.”

The offenders were charged with Petit Larceny, five counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Third Degree, and Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, all Class A misdemeanors. By motion, one of the offenders seeks the dismissal of all charges contained in the Criminal Court Complaint, asserting that the People’s complaint is facially insufficient and pursuant to CPL Sec. 170.35, 100.40 and 100.15, asserting that the People’s complaint is facially insufficient.

Their motions were granted in part, and denied in part for the reasons stated below:

Published on:

From the records, in a Criminal Court Complaint, the People assert that a Police Officer observed the offenders at the Subway station. The officer allegedly watched the offenders “acting in concert” receive United States currency from four individuals, “in exchange for which the offenders swiped a Metrocard through the subway turnstile for each of these individuals, thereby allowing the said individuals to enter the transit system.”

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the offenders were charged with Petit Larceny, five counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Third Degree, and Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, all Class A misdemeanors. By motion, one of the offenders seeks the dismissal of all charges contained in the Criminal Court Complaint, asserting that the People’s complaint is facially insufficient and pursuant to CPL Sec. 170.35, 100.40 and 100.15, asserting that the People’s complaint is facially insufficient.

Their motions were granted in part, and denied in part for the reasons stated below:

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said our sources show that, by stipulation, both cases were tried together, with separate judgments to be entered in each. In the first titled information, the offenders were charged with (a) criminally buying and receiving stolen property, consisting of 4 cases of handkerchiefs valued at $68.40; (b) criminally concealing and withholding the said property; and (c) petit larceny involving those handkerchiefs. In the second titled information, the offenders were charged with petit larceny, in that they stole 20 cases of handkerchiefs from their employer, valued at not more than $100.00.

At the trial, the People, called the fourth offender as their witness. After he was warned by the Court of his Constitutional rights, and with his attorney standing by his side, he testified that he and another man was employed as shipping clerks by Handkerchief Company; that the other offender, a truck man employed by Trucking Company, who had been calling at their employer’s place of business to pick up packages, approached him, and in the presence of the other employee propositioned him to enter into a ‘handkerchief deal’ with him, suggesting that a person will get for him cartons of handkerchiefs (which presumably stolen from his employer) and that he would pay him $20.00 per carton for them. They all agreed to join him in this ‘deal’, with the $20.00 per carton to be divided between them.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court held that while they are accomplices of each other in the petit larceny case, neither is an accomplice of the other offenders in the receiving and concealing case, under Section 1308-a of the Penal Law, which provides in substance that the thief is not an accomplice of the person charged with receiving or concealing. Hence, both confession, with respect to and insofar as they may implicate the others, if legally sufficient and credible, do not require corroboration. With respect to the effect of their confessions on the charge against the truck man, the situation is different and will be discussed separately.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said a person is charged with unlawful receipt of fare for providing access to Transit Authority facilities, a violation, petit larceny, and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, both class A misdemeanors. He moved to dismiss the latter two charges of the Criminal Court complaint, pursuant to CPL 170.30, asserting that the People’s complaint is facially insufficient. He is alleged in the Criminal Court complaint to have been observed by the deponent, Police Officer, as “wrongfully taking from two individuals a sum of United States Currency that would otherwise have been paid to the Transit Authority as lawful fares from said individuals, in exchange for which he swiped a Metrocard through the subway turnstile for each of these individuals, thereby allowing the said individuals to enter the transit system beyond the turnstiles.” The officer goes on to allege that, upon his arrest, the offender was in possession of two unlimited ride Metrocards, for which he did not have permission or authority to authorize access to the transit system for other individuals.

His motion is granted in part, and denied in part for the reasons stated below:

Under CPL 100.15, every accusatory instrument must contain two elements: (1) an accusatory portion designating the offense charged, and (2) a factual portion containing evidentiary facts which support or tend to support the charges stated in the accusatory portion of the instrument. These facts must provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant has committed the crime alleged in the accusatory portion of the accusatory instrument. Further, under CPL 100.40, a misdemeanor information is facially sufficient if the non hearsay facts stated in said information establish two things: (1) each and every element of the offense charged, and (2) the defendant’s commission of said crime. If both these factors are present, then the information states a prima facie case, and is sufficient.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this is an Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 7, 1980, convicting him of possession of burglar’s tools, attempted criminal trespass in the second degree and attempted petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Kings County Criminal lawyer said that on March 8, 1980 the complainant was alone in her fifth floor apartment when she heard a knock at her door. She did not answer as she was undressed at the time and was not expecting any company. After hearing a noise, she approached the door and observed that someone was at her door and was trying to gain entry. She then called the police, heard children in the hall and heard whoever was at the door walk away. Upon patting down the codefendant, a loaded revolver was recovered and a search of the appellant yielded a key with which the arresting officer was able to unlock one of the locks on the complainant’s apartment door.

At trial, nine-year-old twin sisters identified the appellant and the codefendant as the two men who had been at the complainant’s door and both testified that appellant had asked if they knew a certain individual. One of the girls identified the appellant as the man who put the key in complainant’s door.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant in a non-jury trial is charged with having committed the crime of Grand larceny in the First Degree by stealing a certain promissory note of the value of more than $500. owned by the Financial Corporation. The theft is alleged to have been committed by the use of fraudulent and false representations to the effect that certain accounts receivable were valid outstanding accounts representing sums due and owing to the defendant.

A Kings County Criminal attorney said that the defendant and his company, were indebted to the Finance Corporation in the sum of $10,000. As evidence of the debt, the finance corporation held a note in that sum. When the note was two or three weeks past due, the defendant requested a renewal of the note and offered a number of accounts receivable as collateral security.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the financial corporation refused to renew the note or to extend the time for payment thereof but stated that it would accept the accounts receivable in part payment of the note. Since the accounts receivable amounted to less than the amount owing on the note, the defendant, in effecting the payment of the full amount of the note, delivered a check for the difference.

Contact Information