SEX CRIMES Category Archives — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

NY Court Discusses Prior Bad Acts and the Consent Defense in Recent Rape Case

May 24, 2025 | Tilem & Associates

When you’re accused of a sex crime, one of the most damaging developments in your case can be the admission of past allegations—especially if they involve similar conduct. In People v. Sin, the New York Court of Appeals upheld a conviction for first-degree rape and sexual abuse, ruling that testimony from two of the defendant’s other sisters-in-law about previous attempted sexual assaults was properly admitted at trial. The court found this evidence relevant to the central issue in the case: whether the defendant had criminal intent during the alleged assault.

This ruling is a significant reminder that your prior conduct—even if it never led to criminal charges—can be introduced against you if the court determines it’s legally relevant. Understanding how and why this kind of evidence may be used is essential for anyone facing similar allegations.

The Allegations Against the Defendant

The charges in Sin stemmed from a violent sexual assault reported by the defendant’s sister-in-law. The victim testified that while she and her young child were sleeping in her apartment, the defendant entered under the pretense of delivering mail. After propositioning her and being rejected, the defendant allegedly physically restrained the victim, assaulted her, and raped her on the floor of her home, with her child present.

How Difficult Is it for New York Defendants to Argue Insufficiency of Evidence After Trial?

November 10, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

Sometimes, if a jury finds a defendant guilty of a crime like sexual assault or any other criminal offense, the defendant will later argue that the verdict was “against the weight of the evidence” at trial. This essentially means that the defendant wants to claim that the jury did not actually have grounds to find him or her guilty. What is the standard for this argument in New York? And how difficult is it to successfully argue that a verdict was against the weight of the evidence at trial?

Case Law in New York

In New York, a court reviewing a case for the “weight of the evidence” must first determine “whether a different verdict would have been unreasonable” and, secondly, must weigh the conflicting testimony and evidence to determine if the verdict is “supported by the weight of the evidence.” The court will generally review the statute that is relevant to a defendant’s guilty verdict and then determine whether the evidence supports the verdict in relation to the statute.

Case Before New York Appellate Court

In a recent case before the New York Appellate Division, Third Department, the court demonstrated the difficulty of proving that a defendant’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The case revolved around alleged sexual misconduct between the defendant and a child, and the jury relied on evidence such as testimony from the victim, a medical examination of the defendant, and the defendant’s own statements about the sexual acts.

Using Psychological Tests as Evidence During Criminal Proceedings in New York

September 24, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

One set of tools that defendants can use throughout the course of their litigation is psychological testing and accompanying expert opinion. For some defendants, if a qualified expert can testify that the defendant is not at high risk of re-offending, the court will sentence the defendant more leniently. In one recent case before the Appellate Division, Third Department, the court decided that the defendant’s test results should have resulted in a downward departure of his sex offender registration (SORA) risk level. The case marks a win for the defendant, who asked the court to keep his psychological test results in mind when making a decision.

Originally, the defendant pled guilty to four counts of felonious sexual assault as well as misdemeanor charges related to the provision of alcohol to a minor. The trial court sentenced him to time in prison, and when he was released, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders classified him as a risk level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The defendant appealed, arguing he should have been classified as a level one offender, which would indicate to the public that he was not at high risk for reoffending.

The court agreed with the defendant that level one would have been more appropriate. The court’s reasoning rested on results of the defendant’s psychometric testing and of the testers’ expert opinions. Two professional evaluators tested the defendant, one a clinical social worker and the other a psychologist. According to both test results, the defendant was at a low risk of reoffending. The defendant had strong familial support, he was undergoing a difficult time when he originally offended, and he did not have a tendency to inappropriately act on feelings of anger.

New York Court Answers Question Regarding Sex Offender Registry in Opinion

September 9, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

A New York court recently issued an interesting opinion dealing with the sex offender registry, and its opinion highlights a technical question that can have significant impacts on defendants convicted of sex crimes. The question before the court had to do with a specific defendant’s status on the sex offender registry. She argued that she should be listed on the registry as a nonviolent offender, while the State argued she should be listed on the registry as a violent offender. Ultimately, the court’s decision came out in favor of the defendant, and it decided to make her status “nonviolent” on the registry in New York.

The Defendant’s Conviction

In the case before the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, the defendant appealed an order from the lower court that designated her as a “sexually violent offender.” The defendant lived in North Carolina, and while living there, she was convicted of sexual activity under the theory of aiding and abetting. She registered as a sex offender and later moved to the state of New York. She was then required, under the law, to register as a sex offender in New York.

The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders conducted a risk assessment of the defendant to determine her level of risk for purposes of the sex offender registry. The Board did not think that the defendant needed to be labeled “sexually violent,” but the State argued that she should be designated “violent” because of a specific law, which says when a person is convicted in another state, that person should then be labeled as a sexually violent offender in the new state where they reside.

Rape Shield Law in New York: What You Need to Know

July 25, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

In the state of New York, when a defendant is charged with rape, the defense attorney is prohibited from questioning the rape victim about his or her sexual history. This rule is called the rape shield law, and it prohibits juries from hearing evidence about a victim’s previous sexual acts unless the evidence shows that the defendant and the victim previously engaged in sexual activity. While there are a few other limited exceptions to the rule, the rule generally aims to keep jury members from making assumptions about rape victims that are irrelevant to the specific charges at hand.

In a June 2024 case before a New York appellate court, the defendant argued on appeal that he should have been able to question the victim (sometimes called the “complainant”) about her sexual history during cross examination. According to the defendant, it was relevant to open up this line of questioning in order to show that the complainant had engaged in sexual activity with other individuals. These other individuals, said the defendant, might have given her the physical injuries she claimed were due to the defendant’s rape.

The trial court prohibited the defendant from asking about the woman’s previous sexual history. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the defendant’s theory that the woman’s injuries came from other sexual interactions was “purely based upon rumor and speculation.” This, said the court, was not a good enough reason to go against the rape shield law protecting the complainant from having to offer testimony about her sexual history.

New York Court Decides Prosecution Properly Charged Defendant in Burglary-Related Case

May 8, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a procedurally complex case, the New York Court of Appeals recently issued a decision reversing an appellate court’s decision in favor of the criminal defendant. The defendant originally faced charges after he broke into a college dormitory, supposedly attempting to sexually assault girls in the dormitory. At trial, the defendant was convicted of second-degree burglary but acquitted of a second offense, “burglary in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony.” He appealed; the appellate court reversed; and the New York Court of Appeals ultimately reversed again to reinstate the defendant’s conviction of burglary in the second degree.

Burglary v. Burglary as a Sexually Motivated Felony

The state first charged the defendant with “burglary in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony.” Under this charge, the prosecution would have to show that the defendant 1) committed the burglary and 2) committed the burglary because, in substantial part, of his own sexual gratification.

New York Court of Appeals Opinion Grants Harvey Weinstein New Trial in High Profile Rape Case

May 1, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

Film producer Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction has been highly publicized and scrutinized for several years, and on April 25, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals issued an opinion that has elicited even more outrage surrounding the proceedings. In its opinion, the court decided that Weinstein is entitled to a new trial, which means a new judge and new prosecutor will likely appear for the proceedings. As part of the trial, the court will also reconsider Weinstein’s 23-year sentence.

Basis for the Original Trial

Weinstein’s original proceedings were based on three sex crimes against three individuals. During the trial, the prosecution argued that the defendant abused his power and fame to take advantage of female actors, coercing them into unwanted sexual acts. The theory of the case was that Weinstein offered these women assistance with their careers in exchange for his demands. The case proceeded to trial in 2020.

A jury convicted Weinstein of first-degree criminal sexual act and third-degree rape. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 23 years in prison, plus five years of post-release supervision. He has been incarcerated for the last several years.

New York Defendant Successfully Appeals Lower Court’s Decision, Highlighting Importance of Contextualizing Evidence Rules in Sexual Assault Cases

November 25, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before a court in New York, the defendant asked the court to find that the lower court had erroneously excluded evidence during his trial. The defendant was originally charged with two counts of first-degree sexual abuse, and a jury found him guilty as charged. On appeal, however, the higher court agreed with the defendant’s argument and ultimately reversed the lower court’s decision.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was sitting on a couch with a minor relative of his when he allegedly penetrated the minor’s vagina and touched her breasts. The minor’s testimony indicated that the two individuals had blankets over their laps, and that the defendant reached under the blanket and proceeded to touch her inappropriately.

The minor immediately texted her mother to tell her what had happened. At that point, the defendant was charged with first-degree sexual abuse. He pled not guilty, and his case went to trial. A jury found him guilty, and the court sentenced the defendant to three years in prison.

Defendant in NY Sex Offender Registration Case Unsuccessfully Asks for Reconsideration of Risk Level

July 22, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case coming out of an appellate court in New York, the defendant’s request for a new analysis under the Sex Offender Registration Act was denied. The defendant took issue with the trial court’s decision regarding his “risk level” after he was originally found guilty of possessing child pornography. Asking for a lower risk level on the sex offender registry, the defendant argued there was not enough evidence to support the high risk level the lower court had assigned him. Reviewing the case and ultimately disagreeing with the defendant’s argument, the higher court denied his appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with possession of child pornography several years ago, in 2014. He pled guilty and was sentenced accordingly. When an individual in New York is classified as a “sex offender” by the court, that person must register on the sex offender registry to notify the public of his or her risk level. Once the individual is sentenced, or if incarcerated before the individual’s release, a court must hold an evidentiary hearing to decide what the person’s assigned risk level will be. One is the lowest risk level, and three is the highest.

In this case, the court designated the defendant as a level two sex offender, meaning it thought he posed a moderate risk to the community. The defendant appealed, arguing he should have been classified as a level one instead of as a level two.

Defendant in New York Sex Offender Case Successfully Argues for Reversal of Trial Court’s Decision

July 8, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently, a New York defendant successfully argued to reverse the lower court’s classification of his sex offender registration risk level in a sex offender case. The defendant was charged with and convicted of engaging in forcible sexual intercourse in 2012, and when he was eventually released from prison, the State suggested a risk level to put on the defendant’s sex offender registry. After the lower court accepted the State’s recommendation, the defendant appealed, and the higher court reversed the original decision. Generally, before a sex offender is released from incarceration an evidentiary hearing is held to determine the appropriate risk level and therefore the terms of the offender’s registration.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant engaged in forced sexual intercourse with a child when he was 19 years old. He spent five years in prison, and he registered for the sex offender registry when he was released. As part of that registry, the defendant knew the court would assign him a “risk level,” which would indicate to anyone looking him up on the registry how dangerous the court thought he might be.

The State suggested a risk level of 3 (the highest possible level) for the defendant, but the defendant thought his level should be lower than the State’s suggestion. During a hearing on the defendant’s risk level, the court granted the State’s request and assigned the defendant the number 3 on the sex offender registry. The defendant appealed.