|
Wrongly Convicted Database Record
|
Charge: |
Lewdness in Public |
Sentence: |
75 days |
Years Imprisoned: |
0.1 |
Year Crime: |
2015 |
Year Convicted: |
2015 |
Year Cleared: |
2018 |
U.S. State or Country of Crime: |
New York |
County or Region of Crime: |
Richmond |
City of Crime: |
New York City |
Result: |
Judicially Exonerated |
Summary of Case: |
"Trommie Daniels was wrongly convicted on June 25, 2015 of public lewdness in Richmond County, New York. Daniels prosecution was based on him being videotaped "manipulating his penis with his hand" while in a holding cell at the 121st police precinct in Staten Island on June 19, 2015. Daniels pled guilty and was sentenced to 75 days in jail. Daniels appealed his conviction on the basis public lewdness requires evidence of the essential element that a person wanted to be observed. The State agreed the accusatory instrument did not sufficiently allege defendant's intent to be observed. On August 17, 2018 the New York Supreme Court Appellate Term, Second Department reversed Gantz' conviction on the basis "The accusatory instrument "offered no details suggesting that defendant intended to have an audience." The People also acknowledge that, on the facts alleged, there was no basis to conclude that defendant had been facing outward, which would have allowed the conclusion that he had intended to be seen; that there was no basis to conclude that defendant had known of the camera; and that all that was alleged was that defendant had been seen on a video feed while in the holding cell. Subdivision (b) of Penal Law § 245.00 prohibits the exposure of the private or intimate parts of the actor's body in a lewd manner with the intent that he be so observed. Such intent is an element of the crime "in cases involving private premises, not public places." (see People v McNamara, 78 NY2d 626, 630 [1991]). While intent can often be inferred from a defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]), intent cannot be inferred in this case. As the People correctly concede, there is nothing in the accusatory instrument from which it can be inferred that defendant had intended to be observed. The accusatory instrument does not allege that defendant knew that there was a video camera in the holding cell. ... The judgment convicting defendant of public lewdness is reversed and the accusatory instrument charging that offense is dismissed." All quotes from: People v Daniels (Trommie), 2018 NY Slip Op 51245(U) (NY Sup. Ct. App. Term, 2nd Dept, 8-17-2018). Daniels was also convicted of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and petit larceny, which was why he was in jail, and those convictions remained." |
Conviction Caused By: |
|
Innocence Proved By: |
"On August 17, 2018 the New York Supreme Court Appellate Term, Second Department reversed Gantz' conviction on the basis "The accusatory instrument "offered no details suggesting that defendant intended to have an audience." The People also acknowledge that, on the facts alleged, there was no basis to conclude that defendant had been facing outward, which would have allowed the conclusion that he had intended to be seen; that there was no basis to conclude that defendant had known of the camera; and that all that was alleged was that defendant had been seen on a video feed while in the holding cell. Subdivision (b) of Penal Law § 245.00 prohibits the exposure of the private or intimate parts of the actor's body in a lewd manner with the intent that he be so observed. Such intent is an element of the crime "in cases involving private premises, not public places." (see People v McNamara, 78 NY2d 626, 630 [1991]). While intent can often be inferred from a defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]), intent cannot be inferred in this case. As the People correctly concede, there is nothing in the accusatory instrument from which it can be inferred that defendant had intended to be observed. The accusatory instrument does not allege that defendant knew that there was a video camera in the holding cell. ... The judgment convicting defendant of public lewdness is reversed and the accusatory instrument charging that offense is dismissed." All quotes from: People v Daniels (Trommie), 2018 NY Slip Op 51245(U) (NY Sup. Ct. App. Term, 2nd Dept, 8-17-2018)." |
Defendant Aided By: |
|
Compensation Awarded: |
|
Was Perpetrator Identified? |
|
Age When Imprisoned: |
|
Age When Released: |
|
Sex: |
Male |
Skin/Ethnicity: |
|
Information Source 1: |
"People v Daniels (Trommie), 2018 NY Slip Op 51245(U) (NY Sup. Ct. App. Term, 2nd Dept, 8-17-2018) (Reversing conviction and ordering dismissal of charge.)" |
Information Location 1: |
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_51245.htm |
Information Source 2: |
|
Information Location 2: |
|
Information Source 3: |
|
Information Location 3: |
|
Information Source 4: |
|
Information Location 4: |
|
Information Source 5: |
|
Information Location 5: |
|
Book About Case: |
|
Book Information: |
|
Book About Case (2): |
|
Book Information (2): |
|
Movie About Case: |
|
Comments About Case: |
Innocents Database Created and Maintained by Hans Sherrer innocents@forejustice.org