News from Florida
|
Threatening Facebook post considered a crime
Court: Florida First District Court of Appeal
|
|---|
| The Florida First District Court of Appeal made an important ruling on March 18, in which judges decided that a Facebook status post threatening a lesbian woman could be prosecuted as a crime under state law.
The defendant, Timothy Ryan O'Leary, posted a rant on his Facebook page in 2011. It was directed towards a female relative of his. In it, he wrote that he would "tear the concrete up with your face and drag you back to your doorstep" and, "You were born a woman and you better stay one."[3]
O'Leary argued that since he didn't actually send the message to his relative and she only found out about it through other family members, that he was innocent. However, Judge Adrian Soud, of the 4th Circuit Court (Duval County), denied his request to dismiss the charges. O'Leary was sentenced to 10 years in prison with 2 years of probation.[4]
A three-judge appellate panel upheld Judge Soud's ruling. The opinion stated,
| “
|
Given the mission of Facebook, there is no logical reason to post comments other than to communicate them to other Facebook users...Thus, by the affirmative act of posting the threats on Facebook, even though it was on his own personal page, appellant 'sent' the threatening statements to all of his Facebook friends.[3][5]
|
”
|
|
|
|
News from Massachusetts
|
Massachusetts joins California in barring stores from requesting customer ZIP codes
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court
|
|---|
| In the case of Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc, a customer sued a local store, claiming the retailer had used her ZIP code to send unsolicited advertisements. She argued that the store asking for her ZIP code was in violation of the state consumer protection law. The Massachusetts Supreme Court agreed with Ms. Taylor, ruling that ZIP codes are considered private information and stores cannot ask for them during checkout.[6][7]
The law reads as follows:
| “
|
No person, firm, partnership, corporation or other business entity that accepts a credit card for a business transaction shall write, cause to be written or require that a credit card holder write personal identification information, not required by the credit card issuer, on the credit card transaction form. Personal identification information shall include, but shall not be limited to, a credit card holder’s address or telephone number. The provisions of this section shall apply to all credit card transactions; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not be construed to prevent a person, firm, partnership, corporation or other business entity from requesting information is necessary for shipping, delivery or installation of purchased merchandise or services or for a warranty when such information is provided voluntarily by a credit card holder.[8][5]
|
”
|
The California Supreme Court made a similar ruling in 2011, making Massachusetts the second state to bar stores from requesting ZIP codes.[6] |
|
|
News from New York
|
New York court voids prenup in groundbreaking case
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
|
|---|
| The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division in Brooklyn (Second Department) has voided the prenuptial agreement between Elizabeth Petrakis and her millionaire ex-husband, Peter Petrakis.
The ruling, though just surfacing in the media, was made on February 20 and stated that Peter had "fradulently induced" Elizabeth to sign the agreement.[9] Elizabeth argued that Peter coerced her into signing the prenup, which stated that Peter would keep everything in his name. After her initial refusal to sign, Elizabeth said that he threatened to call off the wedding and reassured her by saying that he would rip up the agreement as soon as they had kids. She signed four days before their 1998 wedding. The couple had three kids together, but Peter never disposed of the document.
The court found the verbal agreement enough to accuse Peter of fraud. Elizabeth's lawyer, Dennis D'Antonio stated that the decision is unprecedented. "It resets the bar...Spouses who are challenging pre-nups now have a leg to stand on," he stated.[9]
The owner of a commercial real-estate business, Peter Petrakis' estimated worth is $20-30 million, meaning that his ex-wife is likely to get a big payout once the divorce is settled.[10]
The decision will likely encourage a slew of other couples seeking to overturn their own prenups. Manhattan attorney Marilyn Chinitz stated, "It is a total game-changer that opens up the floodgates of litigation." However, another Manhattan attorney, Raoul Felder, was careful to point out that "most lawyers are very careful; a good prenup will last."[11] |
|
|
News from West Virginia
|
Woman receives home confinement in 2009 murder
Court: Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, West Virginia
|
|---|
| Thirteenth Judicial Circuit judge Tod J. Kaufman, of West Virginia, has sentenced Rhonda Stewart, 56, to home confinement for the 2009 murder of her husband.[12]
Stewart was initially convicted by a jury of first-degree murder in 2009, for the death of her husband, Sammy. Stewart shot her husband as he lay in a hospital bed in the intensive care unit. The husband and wife had been involved in an argument the day of the murder, presumably when Sammy awakened from his coma. After the argument, Rhonda Stewart drove home, retrieved a gun, drove back to the hospital, and fatally shot her husband.[12] She was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole.
Following the conviction, the West Virginia Supreme Court overturned the ruling, noting that the jury was unaware of the years of abuse Rhonda Stewart had suffered. This hearing in response to the Supreme Court's ruling was not a jury trial, and judge Kaufman alone heard the testimony about the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse that Rhonda Stewart was subjected to during her four-decade's long relationship with Sammy Stewart. In addition to her testimony, her two daughters also spoke on her behalf.
Stewart expressed remorse for the killing, and plead guilty to the second-degree murder charges she was presented with. Second-degree murder was deemed to be appropriate, as she testified that she had actually returned to the ICU to kill herself in front of her husband, but accidentally shot him instead; she maintains that there was no pre-meditation, and psychologists have supported her statements. Stewart may be free in six years if she does not violate terms of her home confinement.[12]
The case is unusual among similar domestic violence situations, as murders arising out of domestic violence normally occur during the argument or altercation.[12] |
|
|
