Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

Published on:

by

(People v. C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08951)

Dec. 26, 2018

The defendant appealed from a judgment from Rockland County Court (June 10, 2015), where he was found guilty of endangering the welfare of a child and sexual assault against a child.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

People for the State of New York v. T.W.

NY Slip Op. 02210

When T was a minor, she and another man sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl. She plead guilty to 1st Degree sexual abuse (a Class D Felony). The Supreme Court said that in the interest of justice, her conviction should be vacated, and she should be sentenced under Penal Law 60.02. She received 10 years probation. The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentence exceeded the maximum for an undesignated Class E Felony.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Decision

The is an appeal by the defendant of a decision that was entered in Dutchess County on 5/27/2015. The defendant was found guilty of 6 counts of a criminal sexual act in the 3d degree, 3d degree sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child. This appeal addresses the denial of an omnibus motion to suppress his statements of law to the police.

The judgment is affirmed.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

By order of the Supreme Court on May 13, 2016, which heard a case against the defendant who is a level 1 sex offender. The case was unanimously affirmed.

The question before the court was whether the defendant should be required to register as a level one sex offender due to his conviction, because of unlawful surveillance by the defendant. The defendant was accused of making cell phone videos under women’s dresses on the subway. The matter is appealable but the issue the defendant raises isn’t triable.

The defendant made his motion via Correction Law 168-a(2)(e) which states that a conviction of unlawful surveillance in the 2nd (Penal Law 250.45(2), (3), or (4) is considered a sex offense. The caveat with this interpretation of the law is that it applies unless the application would be considered “unduly harsh.”  The court argues that this motion can only be brought before the trial court prior to determining whether the defendant is a sex offender.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The question before the court is whether the people have established through clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was a stranger to the victim at the time of the rape. The answer will determine whether he is a Level 2 sex offender based on the facts, the court says yes.

On February 21, 2017 the defendant plead guilty to rape in the 3d degree pursuant to Penal Law 130.25(3). He was sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain to incarceration for 1 ½ years in state prison followed by 6 years of probation. He was released on June 20, 2017. The Board of Examiners for Sex Offenders recommend the court adjudicate defendant a level 2 sex offender based on various risk factors. One risk factor is challenged, risk factor number 7, which is the relationship of the defendant and the rape victim. The defendant introduced evidence that he and the victim were acquainted. The court says he is wrong.

The court agrees with the police report that the defendant was a stranger to the victim, who was 13 years old at the time and the defendant was 25. The victim and her classmate ditched school and took a subway to the Bronx. Her classmate met a male friend there, and the 3 “hung out” for awhile. The victim was the left alone in the defendant’s apartment and was raped during this time.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

A man, who is an inmate at the correctional facility, is challenging his opponents about their failure to place him in a sex offender counseling and treatment program. The court then issued an order to show cause, and has received and reviewed the opponent’s answer and return, as well as the man’s reply.

In response to its letter order, the court has also received and reviewed an additional set of exhibits, submitted on behalf of the man’s opponents.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Defendant is charged with violations of Stalking in the Fourth Degree, Harassment in the Second Degree, Harassment in the Second Degree, Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree. The incidents that led to these charges concern telephone calls Defendant made to the complaining witness, a woman with whom Defendant had a dating relationship, in which Defendant allegedly threatened the complaining witness.

A Kings County Criminal lawyer said that defendant now moves to dismiss these charges pursuant to CPL 170.40 in the interests of justice. CPL 170.40 permits dismissal of an information, even though there is no legal basis for such dismissal, as a matter of judicial discretion “by the existence of some compelling factor” that clearly demonstrates that conviction “would constitute or result in injustice.” CPL 170.40 enumerates certain factors that the court must examine and consider in reaching its determination.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

On January 22, 1971, while the Petitioner Amusement Corporation was the operator of a Theatre, it and its theatre manager were charged with criminal information violating the obscenity statute Penal Law. The basis of the charges was the showing of two allegedly obscene sex motion pictures and two allegedly obscene advertising trailers.

Pursuant to an order to show cause, a hearing was held at Criminal Term of the District Court on the issues as to whether an adversary hearing should be conducted to determine whether the films and trailers are obscene, and whether a warrant should be issued for their seizure. The Court ordered that such a hearing be held and it was thereafter adjourned.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information