Other Crimes

April 3, 2009

NY Judge Finds Charges of Attempted Tampering with Physical Evidence, Marihuana (Marijuana) Possession and Obstruction of Governmental Administration Sufficient

As I often note, NY criminal defense attorneys must always be aware of decisions by courts where they routinely practice. Without definitive guidance by a higher court, decisions on similar matters can be inconsistent within the same courthouse. This is appears to be the case, in part, in the recent case of People v. David Bula, 2008NY052218. On January 20, 2009, I drafted an entry on People v. Edward Beam. In that case, a New York County Criminal Court Judge agreed with a a criminal defense attorney that the charges against his client for Attempted Tampering with Physical Evidence, Obstruction of Governmental Administration, and other charges were not sufficiently established in the criminal court complaint.

In Bula, the defendant was also charged with Attempted Tampering of Physical Evidence and Obstruction of Governmental Administration. He was also charged with Criminal Possession of Marijuana. Like the Beam case, the police observed the defendant smoking what the believed to be a marijuana cigarette (the “legal” term for a joint or blunt). The defendant passed the alleged marijuana cigarette back and forth with another individual. When the police approached, the defendant was alleged to have thrown the marijuana cigarette into the river. The police recovered a bag of alleged marijuana from the ground near the other individual.

January 27, 2009

NY Criminal Defense Attorney Obtains Dismissal of Endangering the Welfare of Child

by Jeremy Saland

I have mentioned in previous entries how significant and serious a charge Endangering the Welfare of a Child is to any defendant and his or her criminal defense attorney. While “only” a misdemeanor, it is understandable that there is a zero tolerance policy when it comes to protecting children.

In People v. Maribel Perez, 2008NY046914, a decision published in the last few weeks, a NY County (Manhattan) Criminal Court Judge dismissed the charges of Endangering the Welfare of Child against a mother of young children. This dismissal, however, was not due to the factual allegations in the complaint, but due to a technical legal mistake.

January 5, 2009

NY Crane Operator Indicted for Manhattan Accident: Criminal Charges Include Manslaughter, Criminally Negligent Homicide, Assault & Reckless Endangerment

by Jeremy Saland

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office announced the indictment of William Rapetti, a tower crane rigger and owner of a company that does the same, on charges including Manslaughter, Criminally Negligent Homicide, Assault and Reckless Endangerment. Mr. Rapetti’s criminal defense attorney has his work cut out. If Mr. Rapetti is convicted of the crimes that resulted in the death of seven individuals he faces up to one year in jail on the least significant crime of Reckless Endangerment and up to 15 years in state prison on the most serious crime of Manslaughter. Mr. Rappetti, along with his criminal defense attorney, was in NY County Supreme Court earlier today for his arraignment on these charges.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is not alleging that Mr. Rapetti intentionally killed these individuals as he is not charged with Murder. Instead, it appears that based on the charges the prosecutions theory was that Mr. Rapetti was both negligent and reckless. Although the prosecution must always prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and has the sole burden to do so, a reckless and negligent offense does not require any showing that the defendant tried to or sought to hurt or kill the victims of the crimes. According to the press release, prosecutors believe Mr. Rapettti clearly was negligent. The press release indicates that:

September 18, 2008

NY Criminal Defense – Order of Protection and Restraining Orders in New York: Returning Home

by Jeremy Saland

You have been arrested because you got into a fight with your girlfriend or wife. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation or your girlfriend does not want to “press charges.” Unfortunately, at this stage it doesn’t matter. You are now before a judge and whether or not you are released, you must completely stay away from the complainant.

Judges throughout New York (Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island) routinely issue “full” orders of protection after a request is made by a prosecutor at arraignments.While there is much at stake at your arraignment, a “full” order of protection may prevent you from entering your own home. Therefore, it is never too early to retain a skilled criminal defense attorney to preserve and protect your rights.

September 8, 2008

Criminal Liability for Acts of Another: New York Penal Law Section 20.00

by Jeremy Saland

You and a friend have an illegal gambling operation. The police executed a search warrant at your business and you find yourself charged with Money Laundering in Brooklyn Criminal Court. However, you merely arranged for finding the physical location to run the operation and greeting clients, but you never dealt with the financial transactions. Maybe you arrange for bookings for an escort services and find yourself charged with Promoting Prostitution in Manhattan Supreme Court, but you never actually met the alleged prostitutes or set up locations to meet because someone else had the responsibility. In an even worse scenario, you are in jail in the Bronx because you were a “lookout” or “steerer” when a friend of yours sold drugs to an undercover police officer with the NYPD and now you are charged with Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance (selling drugs) with your friend.

The question you may ask is, “How is the District Attorney’s Office charging me for a crime where I was not the person who actually committed that crime?” The answer to this question may be found in Penal Law Section 20.00. An experienced New York criminal defense attorney will not only be able to explain this legal definition to you, but to analyze and put forth the best way to challenge the case against you.

August 20, 2008

NY Criminal Law: Bail Jumping (Penal Law 215.55, 215.56 & 215.57)

by Jeremy Saland

You did not show up for your scheduled trial in Manhattan Criminal Court, a court date where your criminal defense attorney was to file motions in Brooklyn Supreme Court, or a date to discuss a deal in White Plains City Court. Not only do you run the risk of a bench warrant being issued for your immediate arrest, you may also ultimately face an additional charge of Bail Jumping.

Punishable by up to a year in jail as a misdemeanor and up to seven years as a felony, Bail Jumping occurs when you have been released from custody or you are allowed to remain at liberty and you fail to return to court on the return date or voluntarily within thirty days thereafter.

June 6, 2008

NY Reckless Endangerment: Building Climbers and Jumpers Alain Robert, Renaldo Clarke and Jebb Corliss

by Jeremy Saland

Alain Robert and Renaldo Clarke are not the first and probably not the last people to scale a large building or historical landmark in New York. Nor are they the first people to need the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney to get them out of a serious predicament in Manhattan. In fact, not too long ago, Jebb Corliss attempted to leap from Empire State Building. From a personal standpoint, climbing buildings and BASE jumping is certainly an intimidating (dare I say crazy?) proposition, but from a legal standpoint, what, if any, crimes are committed in New York State when an individual is arrested for these acts? If recent history is any indication, the most serious offense that prosecutors try to pursue is the charge of Reckless Endangerment.

Penal Law ､ 120.25, Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree, is a felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison. A person is guilty of Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person. A person is guilty of Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree, Penal Law ､ 120.20, when he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. So, the question is simple (or maybe not!)….Did these stunts fall into the terms of either statute?

May 30, 2008

Tampering with a Witness and Intimidating a Witness: Two Distinct Crimes in New York State

by Jeremy Saland

Tampering with a Witness (New York Penal Law Sections 215.10, 215.11, 215.12 and 215.13) and Intimidating a Victim or a Witness (New York Penal Law Sections 215.15, 215.16 and 215.17) are distinct crimes that often confuse defendants, defense attorneys and prosecutors throughout the New York area from Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx to the cities of White Plains, Yonkers and New Rochelle in Westchester County. An experienced defense attorney can help explain the differences in the two statutes, listen to your concerns and questions, and formulate a plan to develop the best possible defense for you.

A person is guilty of Tampering with a Witness when, knowing that a person is or is about to be called as a witness in an action or proceeding, he wrongfully induces or attempts to induce that person from absenting himself from or avoid testifying at the proceeding (such as a trial). In the alternative, that person knowingly makes a false statement or deceives with the intent to affect the other individual’s testimony. The different levels of severity of this crime (an “A” misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail to a “B” felony punishable by up to 25 years state prison) are distinguished in part by whether there are threats of physical injury or actual physical or serious physical injury.

May 16, 2008

The Grand Jury in New York State Part I

by Jeremy Saland

You have seen people being arrested and defendants being arraigned before a judge. You have seen New York City criminal defense attorneys advocating for their clients while prosecutors try to throw them in jail. Of course, you have seen that all on television where the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is glorified through “Law and Order.” While the show is intriguing, the one hour program should not be your source of legal training and education.

Putting “Law and Order” aside, a significant piece of almost all felony cases is the Grand Jury (the Grand Jury can be avoided through what is commonly called an “SCI” or Superior Court Information. This will be addressed on a later date). The Grand Jury consists of no less than 13 and no more than 23 persons. The function of the Grand Jury is to hear evidence and to take action with respect to the evidence presented. After hearing the evidence, the Grand Jury can indict a person for an offense, direct a prosecutor to file a prosecutor’s information with the local criminal court, direct the prosecutor to file a request for removal to the family court, dismiss the charges before it, or submit a Grand Jury report.