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:
New York Court of Appeals Rules on Juvenile Rape Case
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:
Defendant Appeals His Sex Crime Conviction in New York Appellate Court
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:
New York Appellate Court Discusses Merger Doctrine in Sex Crime Case
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:
New York Appellate Court Decides if Testimony of Prior Crimes is Admissible in Sex Crime Case
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:
New York Appellate Court Discusses Jurisdiction Related to an Order of Protection
On Feb 7, 1997, a Rochester man appeared before the Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department to request that an order of protection against him that had been granted to his step daughter be revoked. The order had been granted by Family Court in that the step daughter testified that her stepfather had stalked her and that he had been convicted of raping her in 1985. At the time that he was convicted of raping her, she was only 11 years old. The mother divorced the stepfather that same year presumably because of these actions. The girl advised that he began stalking her in 1995.
The stepfather argued that since the girl was his step daughter and no actual relation to him that the divorce severed any ties that would give Family Court any venue over this case. He argued that the relationships defined in the law as domestic relationships does not apply to that of stepfather and step daughter.
Published on:
New York Appellate Court Rules on Manslaughter Case
In 1978, a young woman moved in to a trailer home with her boyfriend off of North Shore Road in the little New York town of Cuba. They had a fairly normal life together according to her statements until July or August of 1981. In 1979, she had been unfaithful in her marriage and riddled with guilt had confessed her infidelity to her then husband. Her husband began to become abusive. While she struggled to try to keep him happy and be the best wife and mother that she could be to make up for her failure in the beginning of the marriage; her husband becomes more possessive. He questioned her repeatedly about men that she spoke to. He accused her of sleeping with men constantly. He began to be physically abusive. Following Christmas of 1982 , the violence escalated rapidly.
The young wife did not know how to drive and was by all accounts visibly battered. Her mother in law tried to get her to take the children and leave with her. By this time there were two children in the relationship. The wife stated that she was afraid to leave. She stated that if she left that he would find her and kill her. There were several serious incidents of battery and aggravated assaults. In one assault, the husband took a pencil and stabbed it into the wife’s foot. The pencil was removed at the local hospital, but there does not seem to be a police report to detail the incident surrounding the stabbing. The husband purportedly took her outside and beat her head against a tree on one occasion. Still, she did not call out for help or notify the local police.
Published on:
New York Courts Decide Family Matter in Light of Domestic Violence Allegations
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:
Father Opposes Termination of Parental Rights in Light of Assault Allegations
On September 28, 2010, the Family Court of Monroe County, New York heard a petition to grant two small children to be declared permanently neglected by their father. The father opposed the termination of his parental rights. The court addressed the issues.
In 2008, the children were removed from the home of their mother and father following an application for temporary removal of the children based on domestic violence incidents between the mother and the father of the two boys. The children were placed in foster care.
Published on:
Defendant Raises Question Over Use of Breathalyzer Tests Admitted as Evidence in DUI Case
In January of 2005, a man received two moving violations: one for speeding and one for a New York DWI. Because a New York DWI is a criminal violation, the man was not only ticketed but also arrested and faced criminal charges. There were two officers involved in the interaction with the man: an arresting officer and a law enforcement officer who administered a breathalyzer test to determine his blood alcohol content.
According to evidence presented at a subsequent trial before a judge, the arresting officer testified that the man was driving east on Route 404 in Webster, NY at around 2:03 in the morning on the night of the alleged New York DWI. The arresting officer noticed the man was driving too fast and his radar gun subsequently revealed that the man was driving 55 miles per hour in a 40 MPH zone.