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. Zavia JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered February 1, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal mischief in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 21/212 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of third-degree weapon possession is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that there was legally sufficient evidence to establish defendant's intent to use a baseball bat unlawfully against the victim, not merely against the victim's property, and that the bat constituted a dangerous instrument within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(13). The jury could have reasonably inferred that defendant menaced the victim by conveying an implied threat to strike him with the bat, and that defendant also used the bat in a manner that was readily capable of causing serious physical injury even if intended to damage the victim's car. We further find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ).
The court's Sandoval ruling, which placed appropriate limits on elicitation of defendant's extensive criminal record, 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]; People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472 [1994] ).
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: June 09, 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)