Published on:

Court Decides Case Regarding Child Endangerment Charges

A New York Family Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 29, 2009, convicting him of sexual abuse in the second degree (seven counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. A Kings Child Custody Lawyer said that, the motion by the nonparty-appellant to stay enforcement of an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated November 30, 2010, and to continue care and custody of the subject child with the child’s maternal grandmother, pending hearing and determination of an appeal from the order. Application by the maternal grandmother to adjourn the return date of the motion to submit papers supporting the motion.

The issue in this case is whether defendant has been deprived of his constitutional right during the proceedings.

A New York Family Lawyer said the Supreme Court did not deprive the defendant of his constitutional right of confrontation by prohibiting him from cross-examining one of the complainants or eliciting testimony about that complainant’s prior sexual conduct. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, such evidence was not relevant to support his defense that this complainant’s testimony was fabricated. The defendant was given ample opportunity to develop evidence to support his position that this complainant had a motive to fabricate his testimony. Accordingly, evidence of this complainant’s prior sexual conduct was irrelevant and properly excluded by the Supreme Court under the rape shield law.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the Court said that the defendant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct when, before opening statements at a nonjury trial, he referred to alleged prior uncharged crimes, under the auspices of a Molineux rule application. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and in any event, is without merit.

https://www.floridatruckaccidentlawyer24-7blog.com/mt-static/images/formatting-icons/field-bigger.gif

A Suffolk County Family Lawyer said the defendant’s contention that it was error for the prosecutor to question him during cross examination regarding his religious beliefs is not preserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object to the alleged error at trial ( see CPL 470.05[2]. In any event, this contention is without merit. The defendant contends that the prosecutor, during summation, improperly related the defendant’s religious beliefs to his credibility. This issue is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2].

In any event, a Suffolk County Child Custody Lawyer said that even if it were error to allow the prosecutor’s comment, such error, if any, was harmless in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and in recognition of the presumption that the trial court, as fact finder, will consider only competent evidence in reaching its verdict and is uniquely capable of distinguishing those issues properly before it from those which are not.

Accordingly, the court held that the sentence imposed was not excessive. The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is further ordered that the application is denied; and it is further, ordered that the motion is granted, and enforcement of the order is stayed and care and custody of the subject child is continued with the child’s maternal grandmother, pending hearing and determination of the appeal on condition that the appeal is perfected on or before February 4, 2011; and it is further, ordered that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before February 4, 2011, the Court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, or the petitioner-respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days’ notice, it is further ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).

In a any proceeding, even in a family court proceedings a person’s constitutional right is of vital importance. The right to confront the witness against you is a guaranteed right under the constitution. If the same has been violated, seek the representation of a Kings Order of Protection Attorney and Kings Child Custody Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

Contact Information