People v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 07 May 1987 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Scott JOHNSON and Mina Crist, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Eugene Keeler, Dist. Atty. (Nancy Davis Snyder, of counsel), Hudson, for respondent.
Frost & Donohue (Brian E. Donohue, of counsel), Troy, for Scott Johnson, appellant.
Charles W. Ryan, Jr. (Bertrand F. Gould, of counsel), Albany, for Mina Crist, appellant.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and WEISS, MIKOLL, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeals from two judgments of the County Court of Columbia County (Leaman, J.), rendered November 15, 1985, upon a verdict convicting defendant Mina Crist of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and unlawful possession of marihuana, and convicting defendant Scott Johnson of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.
In March 1985, Michael A. Coons was arrested by police for cocaine possession and agreed to cooperate with police by acting as a confidential informant in a drug investigation. Acting in this capacity, on March 27, 1985, Coons entered an apartment in which defendants, Mina Crist and Scott Johnson, resided and purportedly purchased cocaine from Johnson in the presence of Crist. Coons returned a few days later, on April 1, 1985, and allegedly purchased cocaine from Crist on this occasion in Johnson's presence. Using this and other information, a search warrant was issued and police searched defendants' apartment on April 10, 1985. Among other things, police found marihuana in a dresser drawer, four packages of cocaine in Crist's pocketbook and a triple-beam scale which is used for weighing small quantity items.
Defendants were both indicted for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree arising out of the March 27, 1985 transaction with Coons. Defendants were also indicted on the same two charges arising out of the April 1, 1985 transaction. Evidence obtained in the search of their apartment led to counts five, six, and seven against defendants alleging criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and unlawful possession of marihuana.
Since the prosecution planned to have Coons testify concerning two prior purchases of cocaine from defendants (which occurred in January 1985 but which had not resulted in criminal charges), a hearing on the admissibility of the evidence was held pursuant to People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59. County Court found that the uncharged crimes were probative of the issue of intent (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286) and thus ruled the testimony admissible.
Following a joint jury trial, Johnson was convicted of count one of the indictment for the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree which had occurred on March 27, 1985; he was also convicted of count four for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. Crist was convicted of count three of the indictment for the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree which had occurred on April 1, 1985; she was also convicted of count six for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and count seven for unlawful possession of marihuana. Following sentencing, at which both defendants received, inter alia, sentences of 6 to 20 years' imprisonment, both defendants appealed.
Defendants contend that County Court failed to properly instruct the jury that the evidence on each count of the indictment should be considered independently of the remaining counts. When a defendant is charged with a multicount indictment, the court should make it clear to the jury that the fact that a defendant is charged with one crime does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McClain
...not only was such instruction given at the time the evidence was offered, it was also given during the charge (see, People v. Johnson, 130 A.D.2d 804, 514 N.Y.S.2d 830, appeal dismissed 70 N.Y.2d 703, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1038, 513 N.E.2d 715, lvs. denied 70 N.Y.2d 704, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1039, 513 N.E.2......
-
People v. Atkinson
...defendant's intent to sell was properly admitted, given the appropriate limiting instructions of County Court ( see, People v. Johnson, 130 A.D.2d 804, 805, 514 N.Y.S.2d 830, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 704, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1038, 513 N.E.2d 715). The only other evidence of such intent came from the w......
-
People v. Taylor
...the potential for prejudice ( People v. Alvino, supra, 71 N.Y.2d at 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; see, People v. Johnson, 130 A.D.2d 804, 806, 514 N.Y.S.2d 830, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 704, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1039, 513 N.E.2d 716). Here, defendant was charged with violating Penal Law § 220.16......
-
People v. Brown
...People v. Satiro, 72 N.Y.2d 821, 822, 530 N.Y.S.2d 539, 526 N.E.2d 30), and whether he intended to sell them (see, People v. Johnson, 130 A.D.2d 804, 806, 514 N.Y.S.2d 830, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 704, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1039, 513 N.E.2d 716; People v. Alvino, supra, at 245, 261, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519......