People v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 20 February 1996 |
| Citation | 224 A.D.2d 635,639 N.Y.S.2d 407 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Barry JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Steven Losch, Barry D. Leiwant, and Peter Blum, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Jane S. Meyers, and Robin Smith, of counsel), for respondent.
Before O'BRIEN, J.P., and JOY, ALTMAN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered November 12, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the court coerced the jurors to reach a unanimous verdict by forcing them to continue their deliberations until they agreed. It is well established that the determination as to how long disagreeing jurors will be kept together and required to continue their deliberations is a matter of sound judicial discretion which, if not improvidently exercised, will not be disturbed (People v. Sheldon, 136 A.D.2d 761, 764, 523 N.Y.S.2d 220). In this case, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion. Additionally, the Allen charge delivered by the trial court was a balanced instruction stressing the jurors' duty to impartially consider the evidence and try to reach an agreement without surrendering their individual views (see, People v. Ali, 47 N.Y.2d 920, 419 N.Y.S.2d 487, 393 N.E.2d 481). The defendant's claim that the court violated CPL 310.10 when it instructed the jurors to continue with their deliberations while it spoke to juror number eight for a few minutes is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, there was no violation of the statutory mandate that the jurors "be continuously kept together" (CPL 310.10; see, People v. Fernandez, 183 A.D.2d 605, 606, 586 N.Y.S.2d 246, aff'd 81 N.Y.2d 1023, 599 N.Y.S.2d 911, 616 N.E.2d 497; People v. Lee, 205 A.D.2d 558, 613 N.Y.S.2d 208).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Anderson
...that they deliberate together (see, CPL 310.10), this conduct does not mandate that the verdict be set aside (see, People v. Johnson, 224 A.D.2d 635, 639 N.Y.S.2d 407; People v. Lehrman, 155 A.D.2d 693, 548 N.Y.S.2d 260). Thus, the defendant was not denied his right to a fair The defendant'......
-
People v. Johnson
...was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5] ). The defendant was tried with his brother (see, People v. [Barry] Johnson, 224 A.D.2d 635, 639 N.Y.S.2d 407 [decided herewith] for the murder of Dr. Ester Lim, whose body was found in a grassy area of Starrett City on May 29, ......
-
People v. Burgos
...a timely objection (see, People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509, 516, 626 N.Y.S.2d 729, 650 N.E.2d 387; CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Johnson, 224 A.D.2d 635, 639 N.Y.S.2d 407; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 251, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9). In any event, while it is true that the court is required to respo......
-
People v. Kelly
...39 N.Y.2d 288, 383 N.Y.S.2d 573, 347 N.E.2d 898 [1976]; People v. Ramon, 291 A.D.2d 511, 738 N.Y.S.2d 235 [2002]; People v. Johnson, 224 A.D.2d 635, 639 N.Y.S.2d 407, 409 [1996] ). Moreover, there was no mode of proceedings error dispensing with the preservation requirement because the brie......
-
Table of cases
...N.Y.S.2d 238 (2003), §§ 5:200, 17:100 People v. Johnson, 220 A.D.2d 294, 632 N.Y.S.2d 547 (1st Dept. 1995), § 5:110 People v. Johnson , 224 A.D.2d 635, 639 N.Y.S.2d 407 (2d Dept. 1996), § 1:150 People v. Johnson, 46 A.D.3d 276, 847 N.Y.S.2d 74 (1st Dept. 2007), § 15:110 People v. Johnson, 9......
-
Objections & related procedures
...evidence had been admitted since there had been no objection to the evidence at the time that it was introduced); People v. Johnson , 224 A.D.2d 635, 639 N.Y.S.2d 407 (2d Dept. 1996) (CPL § 470.05 requires objection to preserve error in criminal cases). On occasion, an intermediate appellat......
-
Objections & related procedures
...that settlement evidence had been admitted since there was no objection to the evidence when it was introduced); People v. Johnson , 224 A.D.2d 635, 639 N.Y.S.2d 407 (2d Dept. 1996) (CPL 470.05 requires objection to preserve error in criminal cases). On occasion, an intermediate appellate c......
-
Objections & related procedures
...that settlement evidence had been admitted since there was no objection to the evidence when it was introduced); People v. Johnson , 224 A.D.2d 635, 639 N.Y.S.2d 407 (2d Dept. 1996) (CPL 470.05 requires objection to preserve error in criminal cases); People v. Flowers , 28 N.Y.3d 536, 540, ......