People v. Johnson, 2001-10939.
| Decision Date | 17 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2001-10939. |
| Citation | 2004 NY Slip Op 04045,7 A.D.3d 732,777 N.Y.S.2d 190 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ERNEST JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The complainant, an ophthalmologist who worked at a medical building, was accosted in her office by three men who choked her until she passed out, bound her from head to toe in tape, and stole her money, jewelry, credit cards, and cell phone. The men escaped through a second-floor window and ran through a parking lot to nearby woods. One of the codefendants, Lorenzo Redd, was interviewed by a detective, confessed to the robbery, and told the detective where to find the complainant's credit cards. Redd identified the defendant and another man, the codefendant Paul Wellington, as his accomplices.
Contrary to the defendant's assertion, there was probable cause to arrest him based on Redd's statements implicating him in the robbery (see People v Berzups, 49 NY2d 417, 427 [1980]; People v Malik, 265 AD2d 577 [1999]; People v Rivera, 221 AD2d 667 [1995]). Moreover, the hearing court providently exercised its discretion in reopening the suppression hearing to permit the People to present further testimony since the hearing court had not yet rendered its decision (see People v Soto, 280 AD2d 621 [2001]). The evidence, including the defendant's statements, was recovered incident to a lawful arrest and thus suppression was properly denied.
Further, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in determining the extent to which the People could impeach the defendant with his prior criminal offenses (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 374 [1974]).
The prosecutor, however, improperly elicited testimony during direct examination that the defendant was arrested following a detective's interview with Redd, a nontestifying codefendant, which implied that Redd implicated the defendant in the robbery (see People v Jones, 305 AD2d 698 [2003]; People v Williams, 198 AD2d 249 [1993]; People v Tufano, 69 AD2d 826 [1979]; Ryan v Miller, 303 F3d 231, 250-251 [2002]). In addition, the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from the detective that the defendant agreed to make a statement after she told him that she had statements from the two codefendants and showed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Baptiste
...one of whom defendant previously had identified to the police as having information regarding the crime); People v. Johnson, 7 A.D.3d 732, 777 N.Y.S.2d 190 (2d Dep't 2004)(probable cause to arrest defendant based on accomplice's statements implicating him in the robbery); People v. Sturiale......
-
People v. Cedeno
...People v. Wilson, 101 A.D.3d 764, 765–766, 955 N.Y.S.2d 362; cf. People v. Berry, 49 A.D.3d 888, 889, 854 N.Y.S.2d 507; People v. Johnson, 7 A.D.3d 732, 777 N.Y.S.2d 190; People v. Geoghegan, 68 A.D.2d 279, 284, 416 N.Y.S.2d 802, affd.51 N.Y.2d 45, 431 N.Y.S.2d 502, 409 N.E.2d 975). However......
-
People v. Wilson
...merely supplied the correct name of the subject coworker ( cf. People v. Berry, 49 A.D.3d 888, 854 N.Y.S.2d 507;People v. Johnson, 7 A.D.3d 732, 733, 777 N.Y.S.2d 190). The defendant's contention that the prosecutor improperly questioned a defense witness as to whether he had testified befo......
-
People v. Walker
...295 A.D.2d 449, 743 N.Y.S.2d 315 ; People v. Martinez, 269 A.D.2d 608, 704 N.Y.S.2d 826 ; see also 999 N.Y.S.2d 179People v. Johnson, 7 A.D.3d 732, 733, 777 N.Y.S.2d 190 ; People v. Jones, 305 A.D.2d 698, 699, 760 N.Y.S.2d 227 ), and violated the Confrontation Clause (see U.S. Const. 6th Am......