Essay Example on Badia on Trial: Sexual Abuse and Sodomy of 5-Yr-Old

Introduction

The case was between Badia, who is the Defendant, and Mr. and Mrs. S, and one of their two daughters aged five-years-old, complainant. Badia was accused of sexually abusing and sodomizing the complainant while playing in his house on June 4, 1988 (People V. Badia). During the trial, Mr. S attested that on that day, after the complainant returned to their home from Badia's apartment, she seemed frightened and nervous. Upon questioning her, she expressed fear of Badia and articulated that he had put his tongue and finger into her vagina, causing itching and burning. Mr. S. reported the matter to the police station (People V. Badia). Upon cross-examination by the officer, the complainant expressed that there was nobody else in the house during the incident apart from Bandia and his daughter, who was in the kitchen. Besides, the complainant's examination by a pediatrician disclosed that the condition of her vagina had been interfered with. However, there lacked a satisfactory conclusion that the appellant was in her apartment during the incident. Also, the complainant's explanation of the incident lacked "independence" needed for corroborative evidence (People V. Badia). It was also observed that Mr. and Mr. S testimony accounting complainant's statements made to them were inappropriately confessed. Since the evidence provided was legally inadequate, the jury decided to reverse the conviction and dismissed the case.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

People V. Carrington

The case was between the people of the State of New York, complainant, and Daniel Carrington as the Defendant. It was decided on March 6, 2008 (People V Carrington). The Defendant was convicted of two counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, two counts of Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree, and Rape in the First Degree. The charges were based on occurrence where he was suspected of sexually abusing and raping a 3-year-old child and allegedly endangered the child's welfare as well as her seven-year-old brother that witnessed the incident (People V Carrington). Carrington was arraigned and pleaded not guilty of all charges. First, he went to Court to examine Grand Jury minutes and pursued reduction of charges challenging both the legal instruction's propriety and legal adequacy of the evidence provided to the Grand Jury. However, centered upon the case law, court file, child's videotaped testimony, and an in-camera assessment of minutes of the grand jury, the Court concluded that the prosecutor improperly permitted the seven-year-old to give testimony as it under oath (People V Carrington). Besides, there was no additional evidence provided to the Grand Jury. Thus, the Court did not have another alternative but to give the Defendant's motion to terminate the accusation.

Matter of Noel O

In the case of Matter of Noel O, the presentment agent moved for an order according to the Criminal Procedural Law 65.20 and Family Court Act claiming that the victim of suspected juvenile delinquency proceedings was a vulnerable witness. Besides, the presentment agency sought for an order requesting the testimony of the suspected victim during the fact-finding hearing to be weighed by means of live that is two-way closed-circuit television. The petition accused, Noel O., the respondent, of committing sexual abuse crime that endangered a child's welfare. The court decided that the victim was capable of being sworn as the witness. Afterward, the court applied the provision of amendment because of the procedural aspect of statues. Still, it did not decide and consider the subject of the vulnerability of the child until the amendment's effective date. Nevertheless, centered on the records, the court found a convincing and clear proof that the suspected victim was a vulnerable child witness (Matter of Noel O.). It also found that there was a potential of the victim suffering from either emotional or mental harm, which would impair her capacity to provide testimony before the court. Therefore, the court decided that the presentment agency's motion for declaring the victim as a vulnerable witness should be granted. It also ordered the victims' testimony to be viewed with means of live that is two-way closed-circuit television according to Criminal Procedural Law 65.30 (Matter of Noel O.).

Works Cited

County Court, Westchester County. People V Carrington. 2008, pp. 211 P.3d 617.

Family Court, Queens County. Matter of Noel O. 2008, pp. 28029, 855 N.Y.S.2d 318.

Supreme Court, New York County. People V. Badia. 163 A.D.2d 4, 1990.