New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Public lewdness in New York refers to intentionally exposing private body parts or engaging in lewd acts in places accessible to the public or where one might reasonably be observed by others. This includes public streets, parks, transportation facilities, and other areas where individuals gather or pass by. The intent to be observed is not always required, but the conduct must occur in a location where it could reasonably be observed by others, potentially causing offense or alarm.

In People v. McNamara, 78 N.Y.2d 626 (N.Y. 1991), the defendants faced charges of public lewdness in Buffalo, New York, for engaging in sexual acts within parked cars. The central issue revolved around whether these acts occurred in a “public place” as defined by the law. The court’s decision sheds light on the interpretation and application of statutes concerning lewd conduct in public settings.

Background Facts

In People v. Allen, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of requiring sex offenders to report changes of address has come under scrutiny. The case in question revolves around Correction Law § 168–f(3), a provision of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) in New York. At the heart of the matter is whether this law, which mandates that level three sex offenders verify their address with authorities every 90 days, violates the due process rights of certain offenders. Specifically, the case challenges the law’s application to homeless sex offenders who lack a fixed address. In this blog post, we will delve into the details of this case, analyze the constitutional implications, and arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

Background

Sex offender registration laws, such as New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), were initially enacted with the intent of enhancing public safety by providing law enforcement and communities with information about the whereabouts of individuals convicted of sex offenses. These laws require convicted sex offenders to periodically update their personal information, including their current address, to ensure that authorities can monitor their whereabouts.

People v. Beauharnois involves allegations of sexual abuse against a child. Cases involving offenses against children invoke a distinct set of legal considerations. New York State has enacted stringent laws designed to safeguard the welfare of its youngest citizens. These laws dictate that crimes against children carry graver consequences, leading to heightened penalties, including extended prison sentences.

The legal system acknowledges the immense challenges faced by child victims when recounting traumatic experiences and providing testimony. Recognizing the inherent difficulties in such cases, courts take a nuanced approach, seeking to balance the well-being of these vulnerable individuals throughout the legal proceedings and the defendant’s right to a fair proceeding.

Factual Background

In a criminal case, the document that the prosecutor presents to charge the accused must be legally sufficient. The legal sufficiency of an accusatory instrument involves two key criteria. First, the allegations must provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense. Second, non-hearsay allegations must establish, if true, every element of the charged offense.

People v. Medina revolves around a misdemeanor charge of prostitution brought against the defendant, Allan Medina. Medina challenges the legal sufficiency of the accusatory instrument, specifically focusing on the absence of non-hearsay allegations establishing each element of the offense, if proven true. The crux of his argument that in order to commit the crime of prostitution, the agreement to have sex in exchange for money must be between a man and a woman.

Factual Background

People v. Boyd revolves around a conviction that hinges on multiple factors, including the age of the victim, the nature of the crime, and the credibility of witnesses. This case, which was appealed to the New York Appellate Division, raises questions about the sufficiency of evidence, the application of lesser-included offenses, and the corroboration required for certain convictions.

Factual Background

The defendant in this case faced charges related to sexual abuse, unlawful imprisonment, and endangering the welfare of a child. While initially charged with rape and sodomy in the first degree, the defendant was ultimately found guilty of the lesser-included offense of sexual abuse in the first degree. However, the verdict did not specify whether this lesser count derived from the charges of rape or sodomy. To understand this conviction, it’s important to note that sexual abuse in the first degree requires proof of forcible compulsion (see Penal Law § 130.65(1)) and that the victim is under 11 years of age (see Penal Law § 130.65(3)).

Prostitution, as defined under New York law in Penal Law section 230.00, is the exchange of sexual services for money or any other form of compensation. Generally when people are charged with prostitution, it is a misdemeanor, resulting in a fine and little if any jail time.  However, it is still a crime and will result in a criminal record. In People v. Ghang, defendant Lin Ghang challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.

Factual Background

In this case, the defendant Ghang faced a conviction of prostitution under Penal Law § 230.00. The heart of the matter was whether there was sufficient evidence to support this conviction and whether the verdict stood up to scrutiny.

Facial insufficiency in New York criminal law refers to a legal challenge asserting that the initial allegations in a complaint or accusatory instrument lack sufficient factual basis to support the charges brought against the defendant, potentially leading to a dismissal of the case if successful.

In People v. Soto, the defendant was charged with the crime of forcible touching. Forcible touching involves intentionally touching the sexual or intimate parts of another person for sexual gratification, and without any legitimate purpose. The defendant challenges the case against him on the basis of facial insufficiency, arguing that the prosecution failed to allege facts establishing the lack of consent, a crucial element under Penal Law § 130.05.

Factual Background

In the world of criminal law, precision and clarity are paramount, for they often serve as the linchpin upon which cases are built. Our journey today takes us into the heart of a gripping legal case: People v. Powell, a 2008 ruling by the New York Criminal Court that centers on the interpretation and application of a relatively new statute – “forcible touching.” This case is not just a mere courtroom drama; it carries significant implications, shedding light on how the legal system navigates the intricacies of defining criminal acts and intent.

Factual Background

In the summer of 2007, Daniel Powell, was charged with forcible touching and sexual abuse in the third degree. According to the victim, SM, Powell lay down next to her, placed his head on her buttocks, and proceeded to touch her vagina over her clothing. SM asserted that she did not provide her consent for these actions.

Sex offender registration laws aim to enhance public safety by monitoring convicted sex offenders. However, their application often raises complex constitutional questions. One such case that has come under scrutiny is People v. Cassano, which revolves around the constitutionality of requiring individuals to register as sex offenders. In this blog post, we will dissect the case, examining the factual background, the court’s holding, the ensuing discussion, and ultimately, the implications of this decision on sex offender registration laws.

Factual Background

In 1996 defendant Cassano was convicted of attempted kidnapping in the second degree. As a result of this conviction, Mr. Cassano was subject to adjudication as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), a legal framework in New York aimed at registering and monitoring sex offenders. Specifically, Mr. Cassano’s adjudication was carried out under Correction Law § 168-a (2) (a) (i), which includes certain abduction-related crimes committed against children by individuals other than their parents within the definition of “sex offenses.”