New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Forcible touching in New York refers to the act of intentionally and forcibly touching another person’s intimate parts without their consent. This offense is addressed under New York Penal Law Section 130.52. Under this statute, a person commits forcible touching when they intentionally touch another person’s intimate parts, such as their genitals, buttocks, or female breasts, for the purpose of gratifying their own sexual desire or to degrade or abuse the victim. The touch must be done forcibly and without the consent of the other person. Forcible touching is  a sex crime and is a misdemeanor in New York.

Force can be physical or non-physical, such as threats or coercion, and it must be used to overcome the other person’s resistance or to prevent them from resisting the touching. Like with any sex crime, consent is a crucial factor in determining whether an act of touching constitutes forcible touching, and the absence of consent is a key element in establishing guilt under this statute.

Background Facts

Promoting and possessing sexual performances by a child in New York is a sex crime involving to the production, distribution, or possession of material depicting sexual conduct involving minors. The statute governing this offense is found in Article 263 of the New York Penal Law.

Under this law, promoting a sexual performance by a child occurs when a person knowingly produces, directs, or promotes any performance that includes sexual conduct by a child under the age of seventeen. This includes activities such as filming, photographing, or otherwise recording minors engaged in sexual acts or simulated sexual acts (Penal Law § 263.15).

Possessing sexual performances by a child involves knowingly possessing or accessing any material, such as photographs, videos, or digital files, that depict sexual conduct by a child under the age of sixteen. This offense encompasses both physical possession, such as having explicit images stored on a device, and digital possession, such as downloading or accessing illegal material online (Penal Law § 263.16).

People v. Hough is about a sexual assault and mistaken belief.  Mistaken belief refers to a situation where someone holds a belief or understanding about a particular fact or circumstance that turns out to be incorrect. In other words, it involves being mistaken or wrong about something. This can happen for various reasons, such as misinformation, misinterpretation of evidence, or misunderstanding of the situation.

In legal contexts, mistaken belief often arises in cases where a person’s actions or decisions are influenced by their belief in certain facts or circumstances. Generally, it applies to the actions of the defendant. In this case, however, it relates to the issue of the victim and whether or not she consented to a sexual act. The case revolved around the defendant’s alleged deception of the complainant, leading to sexual intercourse without her consent.

Background Facts

In New York, the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) requires individuals convicted of certain sex offenses to register as sex offenders with the Division of Criminal Justice Services. SORA aims to enhance public safety by providing law enforcement agencies with information about the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders living in their communities. The statute outlines specific offenses that trigger registration requirements, which may vary based on factors such as the severity of the offense and the individual’s risk level.

Under SORA, sex offenders are classified into three risk levels: Level 1 (low risk), Level 2 (moderate risk), and Level 3 (high risk). The classification process involves a comprehensive assessment of various risk factors, including the nature of the offense, the offender’s criminal history, and the potential risk posed to the community.

In this case, the defendant was convicted for sex crimes in another state.  SORA outlines procedures for the registration of out-of-state offenders, including the determination of their risk level classification. Similar to offenders convicted in New York, out-of-state offenders must undergo an assessment process to determine their risk level, which may involve evaluating factors such as the nature of the offense, the offender’s criminal history, and any other relevant circumstances.

Rape in the third degree in New York occurs when a person engages in sexual intercourse with another person without that person’s consent. This lack of consent can result from various factors, such as the victim being unable to give consent due to incapacitation from drugs or alcohol. Additionally, if the victim clearly expresses unwillingness to engage in sexual activity, and a reasonable person would understand their refusal, it constitutes lack of consent. Rape in the third degree is a serious criminal offense under New York law and carries significant legal consequences upon conviction.

In People v. Worden, 980 N.Y.S.2d 317 (N.Y. 2013), the issue before the court related to the definition of consent where the complainant was incapacitated after taking medication.

Background Facts

Public lewdness, as defined by New York law, involves engaging in lewd behavior in a public place or in a manner that’s visible to the public. The key aspect is that the conduct is meant to be observed by others or is likely to be seen by others who might be present. This behavior can include acts such as exposing one’s genitals or engaging in sexual activity in public spaces like parks, streets, or transportation facilities.

Background Facts

The defendant was observed engaging in lewd conduct with a male in a parked car in a quiet residential area late at night. This observation was made by undercover police officers who were monitoring the area, which was known for certain activities. The officers followed the vehicle to different locations, including a college campus and eventually a residential street. The car parked near a streetlight, but the area was dark due to the late hour and overcast weather. Despite the presence of some house lights, there was minimal pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The police witnessed the lewd act while passing by the parked car, and upon closer inspection, they confirmed that the defendant was performing oral sex on the seated male. This act led to the defendant’s arrest and subsequent legal proceedings.

In New York, lack of consent to sex due to incapacitation means being unable to make decisions or control actions because of drugs or alcohol. According to Penal Law § 130.05(2)(d), a person cannot consent if they clearly express unwillingness to engage in the act, and a reasonable person would understand this. If someone is mentally incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, they cannot give consent.

In People v. Johnson, 12 N.E.3d 1109 (N.Y. 2014), the defendant pleaded guilty to rape based on incapacitation due to intoxication. However, the case raised critical questions about the validity of the defendant’s guilty plea and the interpretation of relevant statutes.

Background Facts: