From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 23, 1998
251 A.D.2d 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 23, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J., at pretrial hearings; Alfred Donati, J., at jury trial and sentence).


The record supports the hearing court's finding that the complainant's extended, closeup and unobstructed observations of defendant, under good lighting conditions, both before and during the robbery, provided sufficient basis for the complainant's in-court identification of defendant, independent of the tainted lineup procedure ( see, People v. Montgomery, 205 A.D.2d 259, 261, affd 88 N.Y.2d 1041). The hearing court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant's application, in connection with the independent source issue, to present pedigree data that had already been brought to the court's attention and which, in the circumstances, would not have given the court reason to alter its original decision ( see, People v. Anthony, 165 A.D.2d 876, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 903).

According due deference to the hearing court's credibility determinations ( see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), the record supports the court's determination that defendant's statement to the police was spontaneous and not the product of police interrogation or the functional equivalent thereof ( see, People v. Gonzales, 75 N.Y.2d 938, 940, cert denied 498 U.S. 833).

Since defendant did not proceed pro se at trial, but rather participated in his defense by submitting questions for his counsel to pose to various witnesses, and by offering supplemental argument for the court's consideration, the court's advice to defendant, who indicated experience with courtroom procedure, that pro se representation involved risks that would best be handled by his experienced attorney, sufficed to protect defendant's interests ( see, People v. Cabassa, 79 N.Y.2d 722, 730-731, cert denied sub nom. Lind v. New York, 506 U.S. 1011; see also, People v. Timmons, 199 A.D.2d 8, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 811).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Rubin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 23, 1998
251 A.D.2d 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY JOHNSON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 23, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
676 N.Y.S.2d 145

Citing Cases

People v. Sanchez

Were we to exercise our power to address defendant's present contention as a matter of discretion in the…

People v. Jones

The record establishes that the court simply asked defense counsel for an offer of proof regarding certain…