Level 3 sex offender Ronald A. Smith was convicted Tuesday afternoon in Genesee County Court of one count of failure to register a change of address.
After deliberating less than two hours, the jury of seven women and five men returned a guilty verdict, which needed to be unanimous, for a violation of the Sex Offender Registration Act. Sentencing is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Aug. 8.
The Lewiston, Maine, native rejected two plea offers by the District Attorney before taking the case to trial. The first offer was for one and a half to two years in prison, the minimum allowed under statute, and the second offer was for one to three years.
Smith was released Oct. 28, 2010 after serving time for first-degree criminal sexual act with a child under 11. Subsequently, he reportedly lived on Thorpe and East Main streets in the City of Batavia, as well as in Alexander and Oakfield. He was found to not be legally residing at any of these locations.
In court on Tuesday, Smith wore khaki-colored pants, and a snug-fitting white, long-sleeved shirt which revealed a well-muscled torso. His head was nearly shaved. He's about 5'4" tall.
In his brief opening statement, William Harper, an attorney with the Public Defender's Office, reminded the jury of its duty to stick to the issue at hand and not be prejudiced in weighing the evidence because his client is a sex offender.
"The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of our justice system," Harper said. "We know you won't pre-judge."
Harper and Public Defender Gary Horton tried to create reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds by indications that Smith was confused about his obligations and was not properly instructed about them. The credibility of two witnesses who live on Thorpe Street was also called into question.
District Attorney Lawrence Friedman told jurors the case would not last long because it is not complicated. Simply put, Smith knew he had to register his address, knew how and when to do so, but did not.
A videotaped interview conducted on Jan. 13 was played in the courtroom. It shows Smith, clad in a black T-shirt and slumped in a chair, telling an officer he lived in a trailer park in Oakfield. The officer says he talked with Smith's aunt and others in Oakfield and they said Smith didn't live there and never had.
The defendent maintained that he lived in Oakfield with his fiancee until his sister was removed from his mother's house and put into foster care -- because he is not allowed by authorities to be in contact with his sister. Once that occurred, he moved in with his mother. He didn't register there because his mother "would get evicted."
But a child-protective services worker testified that he visited Smith's mother's house beforehand and found the defendant "crouched in a fetal position by the bed with his eyes covered." He said he saw him again the following day turning into the driveway of the apartment complex and contacted police.
The length of time Smith lived on Thorpe Street was said to be four days or two to three weeks, depending on who was talking. He said he notified authorities he lived there, but not the landlord. When the landlord found out he was there, it was made clear he was not welcome.
At some point, too, he purportedly lived in Alexander.
"The place you come home to is where you live...not because you get mail there," Smith is told in the videotape.
Smith, who will turn 20 in January, replied that "before you told me, I really didn't know."
And yet Smith acknowleged his parole officer told him what he needed to do as a free citizen: Notify the police within 10 days of a change of address, show police verification of address every 90 days, go for treatment if required to do so, and let the state know where he was.
Desiree Sumeriski is the mother of Smith's baby daughter and lives in an apartment on Thorpe Street. She testified that Smith stayed there until Oct. 31 after his release and left to move in with his mother.
She was romantically involved with another man at the time and when asked if this created a problem with Smith being around, she said no, that she only saw the man when Smith wasn't there.
Horton asked if she had been convicted of filing a false report of child abuse against a person with CPS and she admitted she had. Asked if she had also pled guilty to harassment charges on more than one occasion, she said yes.
Her neighbor across the street, Jennifer Schaffer, also testified that she knew Smith was staying there and that he left on Oct. 31. Her friendship with Sumeriski was pointed out by the defense, an inference that this might affect her testimony.
The cross examination of the two women was apparently an attempt to discredit their testimony that Smith lived there only a few days because Smith had stated he was there for two or three weeks. But in his videotaped interview, he says he was only on Thorpe for a few days.
Regardless, Sumeriski's landlord was not notified because Smith claims he didn't know he had to.
On cross examination, Horton tells Batavia Police Detective Kevin Czora that Smith mentioned several times he didn't know he had to notify the landlord.
"Did you ask him what he thought was required to notify the landlord?" Horton asked.
"No," the detective replied.
An administrative aide with the Sex Offender Registry in Albany testified that address information filed for sex offenders "all ends up in Albany." There are only three notifications on file for Smith.
The first move documented is from West Main Street (jail), Batavia, to Alexander. The second is from Alexander to Thorpe Street. The last is from Thorpe to South Main Street, Oakfield. There is nothing on file about residency at his mom's apartment in Batavia.
Outside the presence of the jury, Horton moved to vacate the case for lack of evidence and his motion was denied.
In closing arguments, Horton told jurors the key question is "When did Ron Smith register?" He told them to forget about the details, the forms -- which weren't explained to the defendent -- and not to use Smith's prior convictions to decide the case.
"Cases don't get much simpler that this," Friedman told the jury. "They don't get less complicated than this."
Friedman said Smith gave different addresses and different times he stayed at them. He admits that he never lived in Alexander or Oakfield, Friedman said. He also claims he thought he could just list an address without regard to where he actually stayed, which is inconsistent with the legal obligation he acknowleged, Friedman said.
After asking to view the videotape a second time and having the stipulations of the charge reread for them, the jury reached a verdict just before 3:30 p.m. Smith will remain in custody.
A court date for other charges pending against Smith will be set at 11 a.m. on July 7.
He also faces up to five years in prison -- to be served concurrently with the failure to register conviction -- if he's found guilty of three counts of sexual acts with a child under 11.
He was arrested less than four months after being released in October, 2010 on suspicion of molesting a child in the City of Batavia.
Turned down two plea
Turned down two plea bargains........think we need to institute the maximum sentence and get some help here!!!
and when the maximum is done, restart it!!!!!!
He's facing so much time on
He's facing so much time on the other charges, he didn't have much to lose in going to trial. Maybe he gets lucky and gets acquitted.
hope not Howard!!!!!!!!!!
hope not Howard!!!!!!!!!!
You hope he doesn't get more
You hope he doesn't get more time?
Is it legal for a landlord to
Is it legal for a landlord to refuse someone just on the grounds he is a convicted sex offender? Just wondering, seems like he did not have many options on where to live and he could not move in with his mother. I know they cannot live within a certain distance of schools and such so maybe that was why.
Typically, a lease prohibits
Typically, a lease prohibits the tenant from subleasing or allowing people not on the lease from residing at the property. The landlord can demand people not on the lease or rental agreement to vacate the property.
I had an interesting situation come up when I was about 27. I rented a room in an apartment of a guy I didn't really know. I paid him something like $400 every month (this was in Ocean Beach, Calif.) I never missed a payment for about six months.
Then we got evicted because he hadn't been paying the rent. He was even keeping the money I was paying him.
He disappeared. The property owner sued me for back rent. I showed up in court with copies of my cancelled checks, but I didn't even need that. That judge ruled the landlord had no contract with me and I had no contractual obligation to pay him anything. It was immaterial that I was paying rent to the tenant because I had no contractual obligation to the landlord.
So why would a landlord knowingly allow somebody who is not on a lease or rental agreement to live on that property when that person has no financial obligation to the landlord?
Your last sentence confused
Your last sentence confused me Howard. Look at your situation...what if somebody has rented a place but is having trouble keeping up the bills... they get a room-mate to help with the rent and bills. I could see a landlord saying something if the utilities are included or if there was "problems", otherwise what should they care? Sounds like the landlord in Cali. should have collected a better security deposit and booted the guy sooner!
If you're renting a place and
If you're renting a place and having a hard time making it and want a roommate, the proper way to handle it is have your proposed roommate fill out an application with the landlord. You don't just rent the room out without the landlord's permission. In most leases/rental agreements, that's a violation of the terms and could get you both evicted.
Same applies if you decide to have your boyfriend/girlfriend move in just for the sake of love. It's your obligation to get the landlord's permission for another person living at the property.
The landlords should care very much about who lives in their properties. One of the big problems Batavia faces is that a few too many (not all) landlords don't give a rip about who lives in their apartments, just as long as the rent's paid. If all landlords cared as much as the one on Thorpe in this case, we would have a lot less crime in the city.
You could be right about less
You could be right about less crime. And I agree about getting the landlord's approval but I also think of other cultures where they are accustomed to several generations living together under one roof. Also i have seen many people fall on hard times and need to move back "home" and not everybody owns their own home. That is one benefit of home ownership. Well I guess it depends how your kids are, haha.
Did I read that correctly?
Did I read that correctly? The mother let her daughter go to foster care so the son could live with her? Is this the case from a few years ago were it was the sister/sisters he was accused of abusing?
Anyone who has to wonder or
Anyone who has to wonder or assume as to whether their landlord allows subletting or guest residency has an inadequate understanding of the lease agreement. Both issues should be detailed in writing with lessor and lessee signatures attached. Although not a factor in this situation, some municipalities (Batavia may be among those that do) regulate how many 'unrelated' persons can share occupancy. This type of zoning law is usually applied to specific areas to discourage renting.
...And here is an interesting article about changing U. S. culture from www.danpink.com:
October 5th, 2010
When “I do” becomes “I don’t”
Last week, the Population Reference Bureau crunched some Census data and disgorged a rather shocking statistical nugget: For the first time in U.S. history, the number of young adults (those between 25 and 34) who have never been married exceeds those who are married.
A Wall Street Journal story adds some additional perspective: “The long-term slide in marriage rates has pushed the proportion of married adults of all ages to 52% in 2009, according to the Census, the lowest share in history. In 1960, 72.2% of adults over 18 were married.”
I don’t believe that demographics are destiny necessarily — but these numbers do qualify for what I call a BDD, a Big Demographic Deal. The implications are potentially huge — in economics, culture, politics, and business. Here are some questions off the top of my head:
•Economics: It’s harder to buy a house with one income than two, and tougher to commit to a gigantic purchase if you’re living together instead of officially hitched. Is this trend another reason — i.e., weaker demand — that the housing market could stay sluggish for a long while? At the same time, these data seem further proof that women are gaining power economically. (Indeed, they’re already a majority of the U.S. workforce and, on average, are beating men on educational attainment.) Is this phenomenon a sign that women are finally gaining something close to economic parity? If so, what does that mean for everything from wage inequality to the work-family practices of companies?
•Culture: We’re already hearing about 20-somethings delaying adulthood. Is this, like the new health care law’s allowing people to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26, another sign of a new stage of life — somewhere between adolescence and real adulthood? Also, it’s clear from the data that men are becoming more economically dependent on women, especially men without much formal education. Does that suggest an impending backlash among men or perhaps a redefinition of masculinity?
•Politics: Single people are more likely to vote for Democrats. Married people are more likely to vote for Republicans. With marriage becoming less of cultural norm, does that augur a political shift in favor of the Dems?
•Business: Seems to me a ton of new business could arise to take advantage of this trend. What about gift registries or legal advice services for couples deciding to live together? A line of single-sized gourmet food for well-compensated people eating alone? What about a group buying service to give singletons some collective leverage in the marketplace? Or a real estate brokerage devoted exclusively to helping single women with enough money to buy homes? Since postponed (or never realized) marriage usually delays the decision to have children, will there be new opportunities in adoption services and fertility treatments? Or fast-forward a few decades and imagine large numbers of elderly singles. Are we looking at dorms for seniors in 2060? This is America, baby! Someone will figure out a way to make some money from this BDD.
One factor, maybe, C.M., is
One factor, maybe, C.M., is it's much harder for young people to find good paying career jobs. As we've exported more and more good paying jobs to China and elsewhere, there just isn't that much available that would encourage a young person to think marriage and children are an option, especially among those without a college education.
I imagine it is also
I imagine it is also difficult to negotiate a courtship with earbuds in both ears and hands glued to a keypad. More interesting was the veiled suggestion that American women were out-performing American men in academics and buying power. It wasn't so long ago that studies supported the suspicion that educators were letting male students slide because being a dolt was presumed part of the normal male adolescent experience. Perhaps the truth behind patriarchy: it requires enforcement because matriarchy is actually the natural model. ...And so much for marriage if that is the case!