People v. Johns

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Johns

30 A.D.3d 614, 816 N.Y.S.2d 379

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 20, 2006·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered April 3, 2003, convicting her of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the verdict was repugnant is [615]*615unpreserved for appellate review since the defense counsel challenged the verdict after the jury was discharged (see People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745 [1982]; People v Jones, 216 AD2d 585 [1995]), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

We agree with the defendant that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in ruling that the People would be able to question the defendant, if she chose to testify, regarding her purported intoxication in the courthouse two days prior to the date she otherwise would have testified. Nevertheless, we conclude that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Miller, J.E, Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered April 3, 2003, convicting her of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the verdict was repugnant is [615]*615unpreserved for appellate review since the defense counsel challenged the verdict after the jury was discharged (see People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745 [1982]; People v Jones, 216 AD2d 585 [1995]), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

We agree with the defendant that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in ruling that the People would be able to question the defendant, if she chose to testify, regarding her purported intoxication in the courthouse two days prior to the date she otherwise would have testified. Nevertheless, we conclude that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Miller, J.E, Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

People v. Johns, 30 A.D.3d 614, 816 N.Y.S.2d 379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

30 A.D.3d 614 (People v. Johns) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related