Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Allen JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered October 31, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sexual act in the first degree, attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and three counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 115 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his statements to the police. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 [1977] ). Defendant's statements were clearly spontaneous and not the product of police interrogation (see People v. Lawrence, 25 A.D.3d 498, 808 N.Y.S.2d 211 [2006], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 835, 814 N.Y.S.2d 83, 847 N.E.2d 380 [2006] ). The detectives' words and actions relating to the recovery and securing of a loaded revolver were incidental to the arrest and were neither intended nor reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating statement (id.; see also People v. Arriaga, 309 A.D.2d 544, 765 N.Y.S.2d 314 [2003], lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 624, 777 N.Y.S.2d 23, 808 N.E.2d 1282 [2004]; People v. Smith, 298 A.D.2d 182, 749 N.Y.S.2d 486 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 585, 755 N.Y.S.2d 721, 785 N.E.2d 743 [2003] ).
The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 738 N.Y.S.2d 663, 764 N.E.2d 963 [2002] ). The court only permitted inquiry as to a limited portion of defendant's extensive record, and the convictions at issue were neither stale nor unduly prejudicial. To the extent that defendant is raising a constitutional claim relating to the Sandoval issue, such claim is both unpreserved and without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 06, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)