People v. Johnson

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Johnson

453 N.E.2d 1246, 59 N.Y.2d 1014, 466 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3282

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 7, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by59 cases

This text of 453 N.E.2d 1246 (People v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Johnson, 453 N.E.2d 1246, 59 N.Y.2d 1014, 466 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3282 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The search of defendant’s shoulder bag, two feet away from him at the time of his arrest for a crime involving a gun, was valid for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Asch at the Appellate Division (see, also, People v Smith, 59 NY2d 454). The questions asked of the defendant at the time of his arrest, although prior to the requisite warnings, were nevertheless permissible as they were asked to clarify a volatile situation rather than to elicit evidence of a crime (see People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29; cf. People v Quarles, 58 NY2d 664, cert granted sub nom. New York v Quarles, _ US _, 103 S Ct 2118). Retrial of the defendant did not violate the double jeopardy clause when the court declared a mistrial of the first trial on the basis of the jury’s deadlock after two days of deliberation (see Arizona v Washington, 434 US 497, 509-510; People v Michael, 48 NY2d 1, 9). The defendant’s failure to request a charge pursuant to Allen v United States (164 US 492) puts the court’s failure to give such a charge beyond our review.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The search of defendant’s shoulder bag, two feet away from him at the time of his arrest for a crime involving a gun, was valid for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Asch at the Appellate Division (see, also, People v Smith, 59 NY2d 454). The questions asked of the defendant at the time of his arrest, although prior to the requisite warnings, were nevertheless permissible as they were asked to clarify a volatile situation rather than to elicit evidence of a crime (see People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29; cf. People v Quarles, 58 NY2d 664, cert granted sub nom. New York v Quarles, _ US _, 103 S Ct 2118). Retrial of the defendant did not violate the double jeopardy clause when the court declared a mistrial of the first trial on the basis of the jury’s deadlock after two days of deliberation (see Arizona v Washington, 434 US 497, 509-510; People v Michael, 48 NY2d 1, 9). The defendant’s failure to request a charge pursuant to Allen v United States (164 US 492) puts the court’s failure to give such a charge beyond our review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 N.E.2d 1246, 59 N.Y.2d 1014, 466 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-johnson-ny-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack