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. Michael JOHNSON, a/k/a Malik Abdullah, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.), rendered December 5, 1994, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, rape in the first degree (three counts), sodomy in the first degree (three counts), unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant unlawfully entered the complainant's room at the boarding house where they both resided, held a knife to her throat, and led her across the hallway into his room where he blindfolded and gagged her, bound her wrists, and then raped, sodomized, and sexually abused her. During the attack, he told the complainant that he had served time in jail for manslaughter. Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court should have precluded evidence of this uncharged crime. While it was probative of the forcible compulsion elements of the crimes charged, there was sufficient other evidence to prove that element. Therefore, the probative value of the defendant's statement was outweighed by the potential for prejudice (see, People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 421 N.Y.S.2d 341, 396 N.E.2d 735; People v. McKinney, 24 N.Y.2d 180, 299 N.Y.S.2d 401, 247 N.E.2d 244; People v. Liller, 20 N.Y.2d 727, 283 N.Y.S.2d 51, 229 N.E.2d 617). However, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, any error in the admission of this evidence was harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in directing that the sentence on the burglary conviction run consecutively to the remaining sentences (see, Penal Law § 70.25[2]; People v. Whiting, 182 A.D.2d 732, 733, 582 N.Y.S.2d 280).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or 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: February 26, 2001
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)