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. James JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered February 22, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 1/212 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the use of force, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. One of defendant's accomplices used extensive force against the victim, to a degree that was more than enough to satisfy the statute (see Penal Law § 160.00).
Defendant's objection to the receipt in evidence of a nontestifying codefendant's plea allocution was insufficiently specific to preserve defendant's present Confrontation Clause claim, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that although the allocution was inadmissible under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 [2004], the error was harmless under the standard for constitutional error (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ). In this case where defendant was arrested at the scene of a robbery that had been witnessed by a police officer, there was overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt and the inadmissible allocution added little to the People's case.
The record does not establish that defendant's sentence was based on any improper criteria, and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 05, 2009
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)