Sexual Assault Was Apparent To Judge But Sentencing Not As Obvious

Marvin Flores-Gamez was indicted for first-degree aggravated sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1)); 2 counts of second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b)); and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child by engaging in sexual conduct with the victim (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)). In 2011, the Flores-Gamez contacted 12 year old Susan on Facebook, when Flores-Gamez was 19. Susan and Flores-Gamez traded messages on Facebook for some time before he began to mention the idea of having sex with her. In November 2011, Susan agreed to meet Flores-Gamez, with Susan's cousin, Kate, and Kate's boyfriend, Tim, present. The 4 went to Susan's house and the men gave the children juice that tasted like alcohol. Flores-Gamez and Susan ended up alone together in the bedroom and, when Susan resisted his advances, Flores-Gamez removed her clothes and began to have sex with her. When he refused to stop, Susan bit Flores-Gamez on the hand to make him stop. For the next 5 days, Susan and Flores-Gamez exchanges messages on Facebook until Susan's father discovered Susan had missed school and, during the subsequent inquiry, learned what had happened. Susan's father took her to the police station and, during an investigation, Flores-Gamez provided a statement with facts similar to those Susan provided. At trial, the Defendant did not testify. Both Tim and Kate testified that the Defendant and Susan were never alone together and that the Defendant did not sexually assault Susan. A psychologists report was also offered to show that Susan had indicated Tim's mother was also in the apartment and was the one who stopped the sexual assault. Following a trial in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Flores-Gamez was found guilty of 2 counts of second-degree sexual assault. Flores-Gamez was sentenced to a concurrent 8 year term for both counts, subject to an 85% parole disqualifier under the No Early Release Act (N.E.R.A.) (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2). In State v. Flores-Gamez, the defendant appealed. The N.J. Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the trial judge except defendant's sentence. The Appellate Division held that the trial judge did not follow proper procedure with regard to sentencing. The judge listed the aggravating and mitigating factors, without making any specific findings in regard thereto, and then meted out the sentence. The judge found aggravating factors one and two; however, the victim's age was an element of second-degree sexual assault and could not be considered. Also, the trial judge failed to give any indication that the mitigating factors raised by the defendant were considered. The Appellate Division remanded for resentencing. If you are charged with a sex crime you are subject to incarceration, registration as a sex offender and the accompanying stigma which will effect where you may live, where you may work and how others will treat you and possibly even civil commitment. It is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to assist you with these charges. For more information about rape, endangering the welfare of a minor, sexual assault, criminal sexual contact and other sex crimes in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Sexual Assault Conviction Upheld After Appellate Dissent

T.J.M. was accused by the daughter of his girlfriend, with whom he resided, of sexual abuse. T.J.M. was charged with second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b)), first-degree aggravated sexual assault (N.J.S.A.. 2C:14-2(a)(1)) and second-degree endangering the welfare of a minor (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)) and was ultimately convicted of second-degree sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a minor. Chloe, the child making the accusations, indicated that T.J.M. had abused here over a period of roughly 4 years in the residence they shared and in the defendant's van. The conviction of T.J.M. in the Bergen County Superior Court, Law Division, Criminal part was affirmed by the NJ Appellate Division but a dissenting opinion within the Appellate Division led to an appeal. In a pretrial hearing, the trial judge determined that the defendant's 6 year old conviction for resisting arrest during a driving under the influence (DUI) stop could be utilized to impeach him at trial. Additionally, Chloe's lengthy history of involvement with the juvenile justice system prior to making the allegations against the defendant was limited to defense counsel's cross-examination at trial. The defendant raised, on appeal, Chloe's entrance and presence in the courtroom during summation of the defense and prosecution to which an objection had been raised during trial as well as the fact that person's in the courtroom were identified. The dissenting opinion focused on the cumulative errors set forth above resulting in a deprivation of the defendant's right to a fair trial. During an appeal as a matter of right, in State v. T.J.M., the NJ Appellate Division determined that the dissenting opinion was not correct in its interpretations and focus and upheld the opinion of the NJ Appellate Division affirming the defendant's conviction. Sex crime charges can be levied many years after an alleged incident and can result in incarceration, substantial and irreparable damage to the reputation and lifestyle of the accused in addition to the deprivation of liberty and rights, registration as a sex offender, loss of employment opportunities, possibility of civil commitment and social stigma. If you are accused of a sex crime it is absolutely imperative that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to begin working on your defense immediately. For more information about sexual assault, rape, endangering the welfare of a minor, internet crimes, child pornography or other sex crimes in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

Judge's Finding Against Civil Commitment Of A Sex-Offender Is Reversed

C.H. is a rapist with a history of sex crime convictions for acts committed from 1978 through 2005 against women ages 17 to 36. C.H. also has a history of convictions for drug offenses, robbery, receiving stolen property and theft, parole violations and failure to register as a sex offender. As a result of his previous post-release behaviors and prior pleas and guilty verdicts including sexual assault, attempted criminal sexual contact, terroristic threats, assault, criminal sexual assault, criminal restraint, criminal attempt and rape the State petitioned, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, for the civil commitment of C.H. pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA)(N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38) upon his scheduled release from the Special Treatment Unit (STU). In May 2012, two State psychiatrists both found that C.H. fit the criteria for civil commitment under the SVPA due to his inability to control his own sexually violent behavior, likelihood of reoffending and danger to the public as set forth in In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (2009) and In re Civil Commitment of A.H.B., 386 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div. 2006). The State’s burden of proof in seeking civil commitment is clear and convincing evidence pursuant to In re Civil Commitment of J.H.M., 367 N.J. Super. 599 (App. Div. 2003). During a commitment hearing, C.H.’s psychiatrist contended that C.H. was not “highly likely” to reoffend if released. Although the judge held that C.H. suffered from paraphilia, antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and polysubstance abuse and there was a risk that C.H. would reoffend, the judge held that the State had not met its burden of proof. In re the Civil Commitment of C.H. resulted in the State’s appeal of the judge’s finding with regard to C.H.’s likelihood of reoffending. Pursuant to In re Civil Commitment of T.J.N., 390 N.J. Super. 218, 225 (App. Div. 2007) a trial court’s order of commitment under the SVPA will be reversed only for “an abuse of discretion or lack of evidence to support it.” Under In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (1996) the record must be reviewed to determine whether the judge’s decision reflected the evidence presented and findings set forth by the experts for both sides collectively where the factfinder would not have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision without reference to expert opinions. Reasoning that the judge’s failure to find a risk of re-offense in light of evidence and expert opinions presented was a “mistaken exercise in discretion” the N.J. Appellate Division reversed the matter with direction to the trial judge to more fully review the record with regard to the issues presented at future review hearings regarding the commitment of C.H. If you are facing sex crime charges the consequences are severe including potential registry as a sex-offender under Megan's Law, the stigma associated with sexual assault perpetrators, prison and possibly civil commitment. If you are charged with a sex crime, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about sexual assault, rape, internet crimes, solicitation of a minor, endangering the welfare of a minor or other sex crimes in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Sex Assault Conviction Overturned Due To Police Officer's Prejudicial Testimony

E.S. was convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)); second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 14-2(b)); and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)) based on allegations by his stepdaughter S.W. S.W. was born in 1996 and her mother, N.S, married E.S. in 1998. E.S. and N.S. had children of their own. Living conditions in the family home were beyond crowded and the parents and five children, including S.W., all slept in one bedroom. S.W. complained to her mother in 2008 about multiple touchings by E.S. and when nothing changed, S.W. complained to Aziza Hassan, her teacher. During the interaction with Hassan, S.W. began sobbing in the early morning before school began after Hassan found S.W. waiting in the classroom. Hassan asked S.W. what the problem was and, after S.W. indicated there were problems at home, Hassan asked S.W. if she was raped. Once S.W. indicated to Hassan that S.W. had been raped, Hassan notified the police, DYFS and school authorities. E.S. was arrested after an investigation and sentenced to 12 years in prison with an eighty-five percent parole ineligibility period under the No Early Release Act (N.E.R.A.)(N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2) and a concurrent 6 year term also subject to NERA. In State v. E.S., E.S. appealed based on multiple issues which the court found did not prejudice his rights. The N.J. Appellate Division held that one of the issues raised on appeal by E.S. was valid and had substantial probability of prejudicing the jury. Detective Jennifer Novak of the South River Police Department made multiple statements at trial, in the jury's presence, which supported the credibility of S.W. In particular, Novak indicated her belief of S.W.'s statements and implied that the investigation revealed evidence that the crimes had occurred. Even after the admonishment of the trial judge, Novak continued to make implications about the veracity of S.W. and guilt of E.S. The N.J. Appellate Division heavily weighed the matter of Novak's testimony and sighted to multiple prior decisions regarding the matter. State v. J.Q., 252 N.J. Super. 11 (App. Div. 1991) addressed the issue of witness credibility being a question for the jury. State v. Landeros, 20 N.J. 69, (1955) held that police officers may not offer opinions as to the defendant's culpability when testifying as fact witnesses. Novak's implication that notes written by S.W. in response to Hassan's questioning about the word 'rape' included more inculpatory evidence than they did was contrary to State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263 (1973). The N.J. Appellate Division held that the testimony of Novak could have prejudiced the jury against E.S. and reversed the convictions and remanded to the Law Division for a new trial on all three counts of the indictment. If you are accused of sexual assault or other sex crimes in NJ you are facing very serious penalties including civil commitment, prison and lifetime registry as a sex offender. You need experienced legal counsel to defend you against these charges. For more information about sexual assault, rape, endangering the welfare of a minor, solicitation of a minor, internet crimes or other sex crimes in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Sex Offender's Have Right to Self-Representation In Civil Commitment Proceedings

Although civil commitment proceedings for sex offenders who have completed their prison sentences are civil rather than criminal in nature, the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27 to -27.38, dictates that counsel will be provided for such hearings. D.Y. is a 52 year old male with a history of sexual assaults against minors. In 1986, D.Y. was indicted for first-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1)); second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b)) and third-degree endangering the welfare of a minor (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)) based on allegations by D.Y.’s 12 year old nephew, C.Y., against D.Y. Ultimately D.Y. received a 5 year sentence in exchange for a plea to second-degree sexual assault against C.Y. In 1994, after his release, D.Y. befriended 12 year old A.B. who later alleged D.Y. had sexually abused him by engaging in touching, oral and anal sex and the display of child pornography to A.B. by D.Y. as well as videotaping sexual acts between A.B. and D.Y. As a result of A.B.’s allegations, D.Y. was charged with first-degree aggravated sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1)), second-degree sexual contact (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b)), and third-degree impairing the morals of a child (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)). Upon entering a guilty plea to first-degree aggravated sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1)) in 1999 he received an 18 year prison sentence with a 6 year period of parole ineligibility at the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center at Avenel (ADTC). Additionally, charges were levied by federal authorities and D.Y. was sentenced to 137 months of incarceration. In 2008, D.Y. completed his period of incarceration and a decision as to the civil commitment of D.Y. was required in order to protect the public if D.Y. was still considered a danger to children. In In the Matter of Civil Commitment of D.Y., 426, N.J. Super. 436 (App. Div. 2012), ___ N.J. ___(2014) the N.J. Supreme Court overturned the Appellate Division’s ruling and upheld D.Y.’s right to represent himself at his civil commitment hearing, as long as standby counsel was available at all times to facilitate as necessary for D.Y. The ruling was based on the long-standing right to self-representation dating back to 13th century English law. Although the right to self-representation exists, Justice Patterson writing for the Court included that self-representation “seldom proves to be a sound strategic choice.” If you are facing charges for sex offenses, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about sexual assault, rape, statutory rape, endangering the welfare of a minor, child pornography or other sex crimes in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Financial Penalty For Sex Crimes Under Sex Crime Victim Treatment Fund (SCVTF)

The NJ Supreme Court recently decided State v. Bolvito, a case pertaining to financial penalties imposed upon sex offenders. Carlos Bolvito pled guilty to first-degree aggravated sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b)), second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a))and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4) for acts committed with his stepdaughter. As a result of his plea, Bolvito's sentence included payment to the Sex Crime Victim Treatment Fund (SCVTF) pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-10. The defendant challenged the amount of his fine as N.J.S.A. 2C:14-10 does not state the factors a sentencing court must consider when setting financial penalties under the SCVTF. The statute merely offers a maximum of $4,000 and the plea was silent as to the amount of the fine. The NJ Supreme Court held that the nature of the offense and the defendant's ability to pay during any custodial sentence and after release. The Supreme Court also held that the sentencing court should provide a statement of reasons for the amount set in order to establish a record for future judicial review. The matter was remanded to allow the trial court to set the SCVTF amount according to these guidelines. Commission of a sexual offense can be discovered many years after the incident or incident and can result in substantial and irreparable damage to the reputation and lifestyle of the accused in addition to the deprivation of liberty and rights, registration as a sex offender, loss of employment opportunities, possibility of civil commitment and social stigma. If you are accused of a sex crime it is absolutely imperative that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to begin working on your defense immediately. For more information about sex crimes, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, internet crimes, child pornography, rape, endangering the welfare of a minor or other criminal matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

NJ Legislature Proposes Residential Restrictions on Sex Offenders

A newly proposed bill that is currently being sent to the New Jersey State Senate could have a possible impact on sex offenders throughout the state. The bill, named S-570 would give power to municipalities to enact restrictions on where registered sex offenders would be able to reside, excluding them from areas such as kindergartens or parks. At present, municipalities throughout the state of New Jersey are not permitted to enact restrictions on the proximity of sex offenders to certain areas due to the lack of uniformity it may cause from town to town. If the bill being proposed by the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee, uniformity will be taking a back seat to safety. Discussion of restricting the residency and location of sex offenders throughout the state has been taking place since the inception of Megan’s law in 1994. Megan’s law, also known as the Sex Offender Act of 1994 on the national level, was created to require the registration of sex offenders as well as notification of all residents when a sex offender moves into their neighborhood. These laws on both our state and national levels have created a sense of security for many citizens who now feel as though they have more information needed to help keep their children safe from potential danger. Bill S-570 would create the addition to Megan’s law that many residents have been calling for from its inception. If approved, the bill would provide that registered sex offenders be at least five hundred feet away from prescribed locations set by each municipality such as schools, parks and kindergartens. It would be up to each municipality to set boundaries within their town, however the municipality would have to follow the model set out by the state. The bill is currently being sent to the New Jersey State Senate for a vote. A conviction or a plea for sex crimes in NJ will have a serious impact on your life ranging from restrictions on residence, lack of acceptance in society, lack of employment opportunities, incarceration and even permanent confinement to a treatment facility. If you are charged with sexual assault, possession of child pornography, molestation, endangering the welfare of a minor, solicitation of a minor, rape, statutory rape or other sex crimes you should seek an experienced defense attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information regarding sex crimes or other criminal matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Supreme Court Ruling Expands DNA Use In Criminal Cases

DNA obtained by police during arrest for assault charges is not illegal search and seizure and may be used to convict defendant of rape charges. The defendant, in Maryland v. King, was arrested for first and second degree assault charges in 2009 and as a standard part of their booking process, police in Maryland took a DNA sample by way of buccal swab from defendant's cheek. The DNA matched an unsolved rape from 2003 and defendant was charged with the rape. Defendant sought to have the DNA match suppressed as a violation of his fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Suppression was denied on the basis that a buccal swab from the cheek is an non-intrusive part of the identification process undertaken during booking and is akin to photographing and fingerprinting. Law enforcement has a massive database of DNA evidence. There is likely to be widespread expansion of this practice following the court's decision in King. Justice Antonin Scalia provided a lengthy dissent to the opinion which includes the warning that the decision of the Supreme Court in King will lead to the taking of DNA and entry thereof "into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason. Many states already use methods of DNA collection which go well beyond those in King, including: (1) requesting DNA from uncharged suspects or witnesses to 'allow them to prove their innocence'; (2) implicating those who have DNA matches similar to DNA found at a crime scene in order to see if they will provide information about a family member's actual participation; (3) obtaining DNA samples from going through a person's trash; and (4) filing felony charges to get defendants to trade DNA for a 'lesser sentence' as part of a negotiated plea. In the event you are arrested, it is critical that your rights are upheld throughout the police investigation and procedures. If you have been charged with robbery, burglary, gun or other weapons charges, drug distribution or possession, rape of other sex crimes, conspiracy or any other criminal offense in NJ, you should immediately obtain an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights. For more information on protecting your rights if charged with possession, distribution or other crimes in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Futuristic Prevention Policy For Sex Offenders

Sex offenders must be sentenced according to statute, just as those found guilty of other crimes. Under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to .38, certain offenders are confined to secure facilities at which they will serve their time, as would anyone convicted of another type of crime. The difference is that these individuals, determined to be sexually violent predators (SVP), will remain in custody upon completion of their sentences. Most people are aware of Megan's Law and the Sex Offender Registry but many are not fully aware of all possible ramifications of conviction, or a guilty plea, for sex offenses. Those considered SVPs under the law and confined for the remainder of their lives have been convicted of violent rape in some cases and downloading child pornography but having no physical contact in other cases. The premise of this lifetime confinement, not simply supervision as most know is a routine result in sex offenses, is that the government is protecting the greater good of society by confining them until they no longer pose a threat. Interestingly, in no other area of the criminal justice system are individuals imprisoned for crimes they might commit in the future. Sex offenses, no matter the crime charged or pled to, bear penalties which will affect you for the rest of your life, even if you reach a plea agreement that may seem favorable at first glance. If you have been charged with a sex crime you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on criminal law matters, including municipal court matters, in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.