From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 22, 1990
159 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 22, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J., Leon Becker, J.


We have examined the transcript of the identification hearing, and conclude that neither the photographic array nor the two lineups in which defendant participated was impermissibly suggestive. The record fails to reveal that anything was said to either of the complainants which would suggest that defendant was the suspect, or that the manner in which he was presented singled him out as such.

Defendant's claims that his photograph was unduly suggestive are equally without merit. He has not established that the photograph was discolored at the time of the photo array, and we are not persuaded that the presence of the height chart was of any significance in the identification.

We further reject the claim that the trial court abused its discretion or violated the law of the case when it ruled that defendant could be questioned about his out-of-State convictions. This ruling was within the province of the trial court (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 374; People v Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236, 237) and we find, in any event, that the hearing court left open the question of whether the prosecutor could use defendant's out-of-State convictions.

Nor do we accept the claim that the number of past convictions that the prosecutor was permitted to use on cross-examination was excessive. Rather, we find that the Sandoval comprise utilized in this case established the proper balance between the probative worth of the evidence of prior criminal acts on the issue of defendant's credibility and the risk of unfair prejudice to him. (See, People v Sandoval, supra, at 375; People v Hicks, 88 A.D.2d 519.) We note, in this regard, that none of the cross-examination would have revealed the nature of the past crimes. (Cf., People v Bowles, 132 A.D.2d 465.)

Finally, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to consecutive terms, given his lengthy record of similar convictions.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 22, 1990
159 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID JOHNSON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 22, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 377 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
553 N.Y.S.2d 6

Citing Cases

People v. Cagan

Subsequently, the complainant accompanied police officers on a search, and, without prompting, recognized…