Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

State v. Jemal M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 31, 2012

91 A.D.3d 961; 937 N.Y.2d 618

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of State of New York v. Clyde J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of State of New York v. Abdul A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
State v. Raul L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
State v. Raul L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
State v. Robert B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
State v. Robert B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
State v. Kenneth T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
State v. Kenneth T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
State v. Joseph McD. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
State v. Joseph McD. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
State v. Terry P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
State v. Terry P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
State v. Charles S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
State v. Charles S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
State v. Alfredo M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
State v. Alfredo M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*962The 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 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Derrick B., 68 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2009]). 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 AD3d at 1251; Matter of State of New York v Andre L., 84 AD3d 1248, 1249-1250 [2011]).

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 Anonymous, 82 AD3d at 1252). Accordingly, upon that finding, the Supreme Court properly determined that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [e]; § 10.07 [f]; Matter of State of New York v Anonymous, 82 AD3d at 1252). Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.