From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 2000
272 A.D.2d 481 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued April 7, 2000.

May 15, 2000.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered May 6, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Katherine R. Schaefer of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, and Nicole Beder of counsel; Vered Adoni on the brief), for respondent.

WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in prohibiting defense counsel from posing repetitive questions to prospective jurors during voir dire (see, People v. Jean, 75 N.Y.2d 744; People v. Pepper, 59 N.Y.2d 353; People v. Boulware, 29 N.Y.2d 135; CPL 270.15[c]).

The sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

FRIEDMANN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 2000
272 A.D.2d 481 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. ROY JOHNSON, appellant. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: May 15, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 481 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 339

Citing Cases

People v. Martin

The defendant's contention that the trial court's rulings during voir dire violated her constitutional rights…