State v. Jemal M.
| Decision Date | 31 January 2012 |
| Citation | 937 N.Y.S.2d 618,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00795,91 A.D.3d 961 |
| Parties | In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent, v. JEMAL M. (Anonymous), appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Mineola, N.Y. (Lesley M. DeLia, Dennis Feld, and Ana Vuk–Pavlovic of counsel), for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Cecelia C. Chang and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of Jemal M., a sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, Jemal M. appeals from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), entered January 11, 2011, which, upon a jury verdict finding that he suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), and a determination, made after a dispositional hearing, that he currently is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, in effect, granted the petition and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time as he no longer requires confinement.
ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict since there was a valid line of reasoning by which the jury concluded that the appellant suffers from a mental abnormality, as that term is defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) ( see Matter of State of New York v. Anonymous, 82 A.D.3d 1250, 1251, 920 N.Y.S.2d 195; Matter of State of New York v. Derrick B., 68 A.D.3d 1124, 1126, 892 N.Y.S.2d 140). Moreover, the verdict that the appellant suffered from a mental abnormality was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and, thus, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence ( see Matter of State of New York v. Anonymous, 82 A.D.3d at 1251, 920 N.Y.S.2d 195; Matter of State of New York v. Andre L., 84 A.D.3d 1248, 1249–1250, 924 N.Y.S.2d 467).
Additionally, clear and convincing evidence supports the Supreme Court's determination that the abnormality from which the appellant suffers involves such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the appellant is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility ( see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]; Matter of State of New York v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Raul L.
... ... Robert B., 106 A.D.3d at 828–829, 964 N.Y.S.2d 591; Matter of State of New York v. Alfredo M., 96 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 947 N.Y.S.2d 594; Matter of State of New York v. Jemal M., 91 A.D.3d 961, 962, 937 N.Y.S.2d 618). We now address the appellant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in granting his request to give up his right to counsel and conduct his defense pro se. To resolve this issue, we must determine whether the due process considerations ... ...
-
State v. Abdul A., 2013-09692
... ... Robert B., 106 A.D.3d at 828829, 964 N.Y.S.2d 591 ; Matter of State of New York v. Alfredo M., 96 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 947 N.Y.S.2d 594 ; Matter of State of New York v. Jemal M., 91 A.D.3d 961, 962, 937 N.Y.S.2d 618 ).The appellant's remaining contention is without ... ...
-
People v. Bogert
...2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 0076291 A.D.3d 925937 N.Y.S.2d 617PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent,v.Scott A. BOGERT, appellant.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.Jan. 31, 2012 ... Steven A ... ...
-
State v. Joseph McD.
... ... Robert F., 101 A.D.3d 1133, 1137, 958 N.Y.S.2d 156;Matter of State of New York v. R.W., 99 A.D.3d 1010, 1011, 953 N.Y.S.2d 139;Matter of State of New York v. Alfredo M., 96 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 947 N.Y.S.2d 594;Matter of State of New York v. Jemal M., 91 A.D.3d 961, 962, 937 N.Y.S.2d 618;Matter of State of New York v. Andrew J.W., 85 A.D.3d 805, 807, 924 N.Y.S.2d 576;Matter of State of New York v. Anonymous, 82 A.D.3d at 1252, 920 N.Y.S.2d 195). Further, there is no merit to the appellant's contention that his commitment violated his ... ...