New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

In 1992, two twin babies were born to a couple in Grenada. The mother moved to New York shortly after the babies were born. The girl and boy lived with their maternal aunt for the first five years of their lives and had liberal visitation with their father in Grenada. When they were five years old, they moved to New York to live with their mother and her new husband. They continued to have phone contact with their father in Grenada.

Their mother and her new husband had three other children together as the children grew up. When the twins were thirteen years old, the girl twin shared a room with her half-sister and her brother shared a room with his half-brothers. One night toward the end of the year, the girl’s step-father came in to the bedroom that she shared with her half-sister. He got into the bed with her and began to fondle her in a sexual manner. He fondled her breasts and attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. After the encounter, he told her that it was a secret. He did not know that his daughter who shared the room with the girl twin, had witnessed the encounter. The following day, he gave the girl twin money to keep their secret. However, soon after the first encounter, a second encounter happened. In that encounter, the step-father grabbed the girl twin in the kitchen by her bottom and again attempted to have sexual intercourse with her.

Continue reading

On July 29, 1974, the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County heard a sex crime case. The defendant was charged with the sex crime of rape and sodomy and possession of a dangerous weapon. The Grand Jury did not indict the defendant for the rape and sodomy charges on the ground that there was no corroboration of the complainant’s testimony as to the intercourse. He was charged only on possessing a dangerous weapon on March 18, 1974. The defendant now argues to have the dangerous weapons charge dismissed because the only proof of unlawful intent would be the complainant’s testimony that she was raped. If there is no rape charge, then he claims that he cannot be convicted of the weapons charge.

In the area of sex crimes, the law of corroboration has changed over the years. The courts did not initially require corroboration of the victim’s testimony when a defendant was charged with attempted rape, assault with intent to commit rape, and other related offences because the Penal Law required corroboration only for the actual crime of rape. Because other related crimes did not require corroboration, a defendant could be convicted of related crimes on uncorroborated testimony of the victim that a consummated rape occurred.

Continue reading

On December 9, 2010, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department of New York heard the case of the People of the State of New York v. Richard P. King in a sex crime case. This sex crime involved a victim who was 11 years old who went swimming at a park with two men. The defendant drank some beer and gave the boy cigars before touching his genitals. He was convicted of sexual abuse in the first and second degrees, forcible touching, and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant claims that there is not sufficient evidence for all of the crimes for which he was charged.

The defendant says that he did not force the victim of the sex crime to submit to any sexual contact. He says that any touching was playful and accidental and that it did not result from a desire for sexual gratification. However, the defendant did not make a motion to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence introduced at trial, so this issue has not been preserved for appellate review. The victim testified that the defendant used force to try to remove the victim’s shorts while they were swimming in a pond. He also said that the defendant tapped his genitals several times while they were wrestling.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading