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, etc., respondent, v. Xavier JOHNSON, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered November 18, 2005, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), assault in the third degree (two counts), criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not erroneously admit evidence of uncharged crimes or prior bad acts (see generally People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59). There was testimony regarding the defendant's status as a parolee, to which the defendant did not object, thus failing to preserve his contention for appellate review. In any event, although such testimony implicitly informed the jury of his prior bad acts, it was nonetheless admissible to complete the narrative of the crime charged (see People v. Campbell, 7 A.D.3d 409, 410, 777 N.Y.S.2d 435; People v. Davis, 169 A.D.2d 774, 775, 565 N.Y.S.2d 530). Additionally, the court provided the jury with appropriate limiting instructions immediately after the challenged testimony was elicited (see People v. Chestnut, 254 A.D.2d 525, 526, 678 N.Y.S.2d 694; People v. Correa, 246 A.D.2d 552, 553, 667 N.Y.S.2d 761; People v. Davis, 169 A.D.2d at 775, 565 N.Y.S.2d 530).
Further, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for a continuance, since the defendant did not show that the proposed defense witness, who twice failed to appear, would present testimony material to the case (see People v. Arroyo, 77 N.Y.2d 947, 948, 570 N.Y.S.2d 481, 573 N.E.2d 569; People v. Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402, 406, 393 N.Y.S.2d 353, 361 N.E.2d 1003; People v. Payton, 31 A.D.3d 580, 581, 818 N.Y.S.2d 273; People v. Edwards, 3 A.D.3d 504, 771 N.Y.S.2d 145).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
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 07, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)