Home/New York Court of Appeals/People v. Johnson

People v. Johnson

599 N.E.2d 682, 80 N.Y.2d 798, 587 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 1542
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 9, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 599 N.E.2d 682 (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, 599 N.E.2d 682, 80 N.Y.2d 798, 587 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 1542 (N.Y. 1992).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Defendant and a codefendant were convicted after a jury trial of two counts of murder in the second degree and additional, related criminal counts.

We agree with the Appellate Division that the eyewitness’s testimony regarding the lineup identification of defendant should have been suppressed and, therefore, was erroneously received in evidence at trial. However, we conclude, as did the dissenting Justice below, that the error in this case cannot be deemed harmless (People v Johnson, 176 AD2d 818, 820; compare, People v Harris, 80 NY2d 796 [decided today]; see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

The eyewitness, the sole witness who inculpated defendant in the commission of these crimes, gave testimony which was internally contradictory and inconsistent in nature. Significantly, the trial prosecutor pointedly relied on the erroneously admitted lineup evidence in the People’s opening statement and summation, thus exacerbating the prejudicial impact. Under these circumstances, the educement before and finding by the suppression court of an independent source for the witness’s in-court identification does not, standing alone, satisfy the harmless error standard. We cannot conclude on this [800]*800record that there was "no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction and that it was thus harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Id., at 237.)

We have considered defendant-appellant’s other arguments and conclude that they lack merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Related

State v. Martinez
2021 NMSC 002 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2020)
People v. Robinson
2019 NY Slip Op 1799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Vargas
2017 NY Slip Op 7465 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
State v. Artis
Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2014
People v. Rodriguez
741 N.E.2d 882 (New York Court of Appeals, 2000)
People v. King
259 A.D.2d 763 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Rufin
237 A.D.2d 866 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Seit
653 N.E.2d 1168 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Ruiz
207 A.D.2d 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Board of Education v. Christa Construction, Inc.
608 N.E.2d 756 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
People v. Harris
599 N.E.2d 681 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
599 N.E.2d 682, 80 N.Y.2d 798, 587 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 1542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-johnson-ny-1992.