New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: October 9, 2012

NY Supreme Court Determines Level of Sex Offender Status

by Stephen Bilkis

A case came before the Supreme Court of the State of New York. A woman had been convicted of one count of promoting prostitution in the second degree. She was required to register as a Level 1 sex offender because of this conviction according to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Sometime later, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended that the defendant’s status should be changed to a Level 2 for this sex crime. The court was not notified that a hearing would be sought to do this. When the defendant appeared in court on April 26 and 27, 2004, it was determined that she was a Level 1 sex offender and that she would not be required to have her picture, address, and other information posted publically.

The woman had originally been convicted of promoting prostitution and endangering the welfare of a child. She was also convicted of criminal solicitation. She had befriended a 13-year-oldNY girl to introduce her to the world of prostitution after being directed to do this by her pimp. She was 22 years old at the time and was sentenced as a first felony offender and was sentenced as such. The People argued that she should be raised to a Level 2 sex offender for her sex crime. Being on this level would label her publically as a sex offender, whereas Level 1 offenders are generally only known by local police.

Published on: October 8, 2012

New York Family Court Discusses Evidence in Juvenile Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 4, 1972, the Family Court of the City of New York, New York County made a unique decision in this sex crime case concerning the Penal Law that a defendant may not be convicted of rape ‘solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim.’ (P.L. 130-15). In this case, a 13 year-old boy had been accused of raping two different girls. He was allegedly preparing to rape a third girl before her mother intervened. The corroboration question of a rape victim’s testimony has been criticized over the years for the depreciation of the female victim’s credible testimony compared with that of a male. In this case, the testimony of the three individual girls corroborated the testimony of each other.

In this case, two of the girls testified that they had been raped. The court ruled that the girls had ample time to observe the boy. During each of the sex crimes, the boy was on top of each of the two girls for over one-half hour with his penis inserted in each girl’s vagina at different times.

Published on: October 7, 2012

Court Discusses Sex Crimes and the Corroboration of Young Victim’s Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

The statutory provision requiring corroboration of the victim’s testimony in certain sex crimes involving underage victims was repealed in 1984. In this case that went before the Court of Appeals of New York on December 22 1988, Judge Titone stated that the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the repealing enactment to prosecutions for sex crimes that occurred before the date that the law became effective. Before this law was enacted, there was no way to apply the new statute and convict a defendant only on the basis of the victims’ testimony, even if the alleged crimes occurred before the legislation became effective. It was argued that the defendant’s convictions must be reversed because of two prejudicial trial errors that tainted the fairness of his trial.

The defendant, a remedial math teacher, had been investigated for a sex crime involving his young male students who were under the age of 11. Eight of the teacher’s students came forward within a three-week period and said that the teacher had fondled their genitals. The teacher was indicted on 23 counts of first degree sexual abuse and 9 counts of endangering the welfare of a child. Seven of the sex crime counts were dismissed. There were 25 counts remaining, and 19 of these happened between September 1983 and November 1984. Six of the incidents happened between November 1984 and December 1985.

Published on: October 6, 2012

All of the Defendant’s Issues Were Denied by the Supreme Court

by Stephen Bilkis

This case was decided on September 8, 2009 by the Supreme Court, New York County involving a sex crime. The defendant as convicted of sodomy and other charges that involved bribery and false reports. A verdict in the sex crime charges related to one of the alleged victims was not reached, so an appeal was pending at that time.

This hearing concerned factors focused on by a motion that defense was not informed before the trial that DeMoya informed them that he had been involved in delivering weapons or other illegal substances. DeMoya told the prosecutor of his belief that the defendant purposely alerted the probation department in Connecticut that he was still involved in selling drugs.

Published on: October 5, 2012

Suffolk County Court Raises Sex Offense and Risk Level of Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved a woman who was convicted of several felony sex crimes after admitting that she had sexually abused a two year-old. After evaluating her Sex Offender and Risk Level, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders determined that she should be rated Level 1. Her score of 70 was the highest possible in the Level 1 category. The Board believed that she should be rated Level 3 as a high risk offender for her sex crimes. A hearing to determine whether her status should be raised was held on December 8, 2005 in the Suffolk County Court.

The Sex Offenders Registration Law that is in place to guard society from sex offenders who have been convicted of sex crimes uses a point system to determine which level the offender should be placed on. In exceptional cases, the Court will intervene to change the level, but this is not the norm. Any judge may change the level as he or she sees fit, depending on the facts of the case involving the sex crime offender. The Court is not bound by the recommendations of the score assigned to the offender. Other factors that may be considered are the offender’s admissions, evaluation of probation, parole, victims’ statements, or other information.

Published on: October 4, 2012

Court Finds thats Multiple Trial Delays by Counsel Have Prejudiced the Defendant’s Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was charged with driving criminal violations involving driving under intoxication (DUI). The complaint alleges that defendant operated a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition. In the blood alcohol test that was conducted, alcohol was found in his blood. The court proceedings encountered several delays. The defendant informed his attorney that the court required him to be present and ready for trial. The same was also required on the part of his counsel. The court said that it was possible that the counsel might be punished if he did not appear on the date fixed by the court.

The record of the case revealed that the court was about to adjourn at the end of the day but waited for the counsel to arrive. The counsel expressed his view that he would not be ready for trial until a given date. But the judge said that parts of the court were not available at that schedule due to renovation work and judicial vacations. The defendant said that he was scheduled to begin trial on his another case in one week, and he could not proceed to trial before that because he needed time to prepare for such upcoming trial.

Published on: October 2, 2012

Court Discusses Constitutionality of DUI Checkpoints

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case was charged with a criminal violation as regards vehicle and traffic law. The police officer involved in this case was assigned to a DWI checkpoint. In accordance with the procedures that are required, every vehicle was stopped and every driver was asked if he or she had been drinking. If the driver answered affirmatively, he or she was asked to submit to a test.

The defendant entered the checkpoint area and in response to the officer’s question indicated that he had been drinking. The defendant exhibited the classic signs of intoxication, slurred speech, bloodshot watery eyes, an odor of alcohol and unsteadiness on his feet. The defendant agreed to submit to the test and the results indicated alcohol content. The defendant was arrested and taken to the precinct. The officer told the defendant that he would be given an examination and that if his blood alcohol content registered a lesser percentage, he would be released; that if he refused to submit to the test, his license would be revoked; and if the results would be unfavorable for him, his license would be suspended. The test was conducted two hours after the arrest

Published on: September 30, 2012

New York Court Discusses Exclusionary Rule in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On April 5, 2000 at around five in the evening, a Johnson City Police Department Officer got a call from a confidential informant who was well known to the officer. He had provided reliable information in the past that had proven valuable in the prosecution of several cases that were both misdemeanors and felonies.

The informant told the police officer that a black male who was known by the street name of “Rabbit” was on his way to a third floor apartment at 20 Willow Street to sell cocaine. The informant stated that Rabbit drove a reddish-brown Volvo. The officer and his partner went to 20 Willow Street which was just down the street from the Police Department at 42 Willow Street. At around five in the evening, they got another call from the informant who stated that Rabbit did not get off work until six and that he would go there from work.

Published on: September 29, 2012

Defendant Appeals Drug Charges Based on Improper Interrogation by Police

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of a trial court convicting a 44-year old New Yorker upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of heroin and cocaine. According to sources, police officers arrested the defendant while seated in an automobile pursuant to a parole violation arrest warrant and a bench warrant. Found in the defendant’s vehicle were a pistol, ammunition and a hypodermic needle. Taken from the defendant’s person were glassine envelopes containing heroin and cocaine. A search of the defendant’s apartment resulted in the seizure of additional drugs and drug paraphernalia.

Following indictment on various weapons and charges on drug crimes, the defendant moved to suppress the confession he made to the police officers after his arrest and the evidence seized from his person and his apartment. The trial court suppressed the evidence taken from the apartment but denied the motion in all other respects. The defendant also moved for the dismissal of his drug possession charge on the ground that the evidence before the grand jury was insufficient to establish the offense. The motion was denied by the trial court. Thereafter, the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge in full satisfaction of all charges and received a bargained-for indeterminate sentence of 4 to 8 years’ imprisonment. His appeal then followed.

Published on: September 27, 2012

Defendant Contends He has Transactional Immunity from Grand Jury Questioning in Other Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A 45-year old man was charged in a single-count indictment with selling six grams of cocaine to a state police undercover officer. The man applied for a writ of prohibition on the ground that the prosecution was barred because he had automatically received transactional immunity by being compelled to testify as a witness before a grand jury in connection with the investigation of an unrelated homicide.

The petitioner was interrogated before the Grand Jury concerning a confrontation that he had with the homicide victim. The petitioner related that he has previously used the man as an intermediary to buy cocaine in quantities of one eighth to one quarter of an ounce and that, on the date in question, the man had accused him of “going over his head on a drug buy” by dealing directly with the drug supplier. The petitioner also admitted that before the date of their confrontation he would reward the man for obtaining cocaine for him by giving him a portion of the purchased drugs and that the man had, before that date, frequently visited petitioner to obtain drugs. However, prior to the argument, the petitioner had told Shills not to approach him for drugs because he had another person in “the business end of the drugs.”