Sex Crimes

Published on: April 20, 2012

New York Appellate Court Discusses Sex Offender Level Assessment

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 19, 2010, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York heard the case of the People v. James D. C, Defendant-Appellant regarding a sex crime. The defendant wanted an order that determined him to be a Level 3 risk appealed. He says that the court made a mistake when it in set forth its findings, which is required by law. It is true that the court failed to do this, but the Court believes that the record is sufficient for it to make a decision. The court rejected the notion that the court made a mistake when it assessed 20 points against the defendant for his relationship with the victims and 25 points for using drugs or alcohol.

The defendant was employed as a bus driver of mentally disabled women at the time of the sex crimes. He said that he chose these women because he thought that they would not be capable of reporting the sex crime. Twenty points were assessed for this since the defendant had a professional relationship with them. Furthermore, the defendant began drinking alcohol when he was 11 years old and using additional drugs over the years, such as marijuana, LSD, and angel dust. He admitted that he was addicted to cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol and this evidence justified the assessment of 25 points for that risk factor.

Published on: April 19, 2012

The Court Decides if a Bus Driver Has an Avocational Relationship with His Victims

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case of the People of the State of New York, Respondent v. James D. C, Defendant-Appellant, the Supreme Court decided a sex crime case on November 19, 2010. The issue centered around the order determining that the defendant is a Level 3 risk according to the Sex Offender Registration Act. In this case, the order was affirmed without costs.

Published on: April 18, 2012

New York Court of Appeals Rules on Juvenile Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a juvenile delinquency hearing in which the Respondent was found to have committed forcible oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse with a 14 year-old female. After lubricating his penis with beer, he forced it into the victim’s anus. If an adult committed this sex crime, it would be considered to be two Class B felonies of rape and sodomy in the first degree. When the original case was heard, the Respondent was only charged with the Class E felonies of rape and sodomy in the third degree. The Court intended to examine the statutory framework in this area to determine the Respondent’s legal culpability and to consider if a lesser included offense was authorized and warranted.

The law determines that lack of consent is an element in a sex offence, and that the 14 year-old victim of this crime did not have the capacity to consent because of her age. In this sex crime case, age was the one circumstance excluded from the two counts charged in the petition. The Respondent cannot be found guilty unless another factor exists, such as State confinement, physical helplessness, mental incapacity, or other factor. There can also be lack of consent in date rape situations when a victim says, “No.” The problem in this case was that the petition did not charge date rape for either of the counts and there are no other “incapable of consent” provisions that applied in this case. Just because these were not charged does not give the Court the right to violate due process notice requirements or include the offences after the fact.

Published on: April 17, 2012

Defendant Appeals His Sex Crime Conviction in New York Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Richard P. K, Appellant, was decided on December 9, 2010 by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department. On July 27, 2009, the County Court of Delaware County convicted the defendant of sex crimes including two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. The defendant was also convicted of two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree and two counts of forcible touching. Additionally, he was charged with two counts of child endangerment.

The defendant and his roommate, a Level 3 sex crime offender, went to a park to swim with an 11 year-old boy. After consuming beer and giving the boy cigars, the defendant forcibly touched the boy on his genitals. After the boy ran home and told his mother, the defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of sexual abuse in the first and second degree and two counts of forcible touching and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to consecutive 6-1/2 year prison terms on his convictions for the sex crimes. He was also sentenced to six one-year terms on the remaining six crimes plus 5 years of post-release supervision.

Published on: April 16, 2012

New York Appellate Court Discusses Merger Doctrine in Sex Crime Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court heard the case of the People, Respondent, v. Demetrio G, Appellant in a sex crime, kidnapping, and assault case. The event took place on November 28, 1987. The indictment also charged the defendant in another similar case that allegedly occurred on February 13, 1988 involving another woman. The later counts were dismissed.

The complainant’s testimony was the only evidence in the sex crime and other crimes allegedly committed on November 28, 1987. The incident was not reported to police until February 14, 1988 when the police came to interview her in connection with an attack on the other woman. She said that on November 28, 1987, she took her three oldest children to her neighbor’s apartment with the intent of going to the hospital to fill a prescription. At that time, the defendant was present in the neighbor’s apartment and volunteered to go downstairs to call a cab for her. The defendant got into the cab with the woman and allegedly told the driver to keep driving. He told the compliant that she was going to pay for what everyone had done to him. He then allegedly began beating her in the face with his fists and struck her head with a gun. He also stated that he would kill her.

Published on: April 14, 2012

New York Appellate Court Decides if Testimony of Prior Crimes is Admissible in Sex Crime Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 15, 1990 the case of the People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Nicky S, Defendant-Appellant as heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. This sex crime case brings up the question of whether testimony regarding an alleged similar crime may be introduced to show modus operandi and identity when the defendant’s identity is not revealed.

In the Consolazio Case, the complainant, Marilyn Pizzaro Consolazio testified about events that allegedly occurred in April, 1986 when she was staying at the Deauville Hotel in Manhattan. The defendant began talking to her and rode the elevator with her to the seventh floor where their rooms were. Consolazio testified that a few mornings later, when she was taking garbage to the seventh floor disposal area, the defendant came up behind her and pointed a gun at her head. He then pushed her door open and followed her into the room. When she asked him why he was doing this to someone he didn’t know, he said that she had “asked for it because [she] didn’t pay him no mind.”

Published on: April 11, 2012

New York Courts Decide Family Matter in Light of Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 15, 1993 a man and a woman were married in a civil ceremony in Albania. Several years ago, they moved to Brooklyn, New York. In 2005, the parents and their five children went to visit their family in Albania. The wife is a stay at home mother who does not speak English. The husband is a businessman of questionable veracity. He has reported his income in three different places, three different ways. He has obviously grossly under estimated his income each time. When the husband left Albania to return to the US, he left his wife and children with his parents.

Two years later, his wife took the youngest child and went to her parent’s house. Before long, they discovered that because the children are American citizens that they would have to get divorced in Brooklyn. Eventually, the entire family made their way back to the US. The father and the oldest child live in the marital home, an apartment in Brooklyn. The mother and the four youngest children reside in a shelter.

Published on: April 6, 2012

New York Supreme Court Reduces Sex Offender Level for Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

In a sex crime hearing in the Supreme Court, Kings County on August 3, 1998, the defendant’s sex offender level was lowered after the Court carefully considered all of the facts in the case. The defendant was convicted of one count of Attempted Rape in the First Degree, and a lesser crime of Count I of the indictment charging Rape in the First Degree, also known as statutory rape. Other charges in the indictment were based on the age of the victim. There were no allegations of forcible compulsion per se. The sex crime offender proposed that his moderate risk level should be reduced to a low risk level, and that the higher level was not consistent with facts that were part of his case and his due process rights.

In this sex crime, the defendant was arrested on March 5, 1993 and charged with Rape in the First Degree, Sex Abuse in the First Degree, and Endangering the Welfare of a Child. This resulted from the complaint of 10 year-old Jamila who stated that the defendant had removed her clothes, spread her legs, and placed his penis inside her vagina. Later that day, he gave her five dollars to not tell anyone what happened. The sex abuse charge was dismissed upon a technical error by the Grand Jury.

Published on: April 5, 2012

New York Appellate Court Determines if Expunging Record is Appropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 9, 2005, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department heard the case of Isaiah Brown, Appellant, v. Glenn S. G, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent. The appellant in this case wanted to have certain information expunged from documents provided to the petitioner under the Freedom of Information Law.

The petitioner was incarcerated at the time, resulting from his conviction of various sex crimes. These included the assault of a woman. The petitioner was also charged with rape and sodomy in the first degree in connection with this assault, but he was not convicted of these crimes. The petitioner later attempted to gain access to certain documents that were part of the rape and sodomy charges. His request was denied at first, but later the First Department reversed the decision on the basis that the proof submitted by the petitioner showed that the woman assaulted in this sex crime did not have an identity that needed to be protected,

Published on: April 4, 2012

New York Appellate Court Denies Sentence Reduction

by Stephen Bilkis

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York heard the case of The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Reginald S, Defendant-Appellant on August 25, 2011. The Supreme Court convicted him of two counts of rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree (three counts), burglary in the second degree (three counts), robbery in the third degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the third degree. He was convicted by a jury on May 24, 2007 and sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender to 150 years to life for these sex crimes.

On July 15, 2005, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act, burglary, robbery, and attempted robbery. These incidents supposedly took place over a two week time period on the upper west and east sides of Manhattan. They occurred around the same time on three separate dates. Three different women were attacked and robbed during these sex crimes. In all of these cases, the women had either had a cushion placed over their faces, and one woman was told to blindfold herself.