From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 10, 2010
930 N.E.2d 765 (N.Y. 2010)

Opinion

No. 168 SSM 23

Decided June 10, 2010.

APPEAL, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered November 10, 2009. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J., at suppression hearing; Renee A. White, J., at lineup application, jury trial and sentence), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

In 2004 defendant was convicted of second degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree based on his shooting his brother to death on the street. The Appellate Division affirmed that conviction ( 43 AD3d 288), declining to review in the interest of justice defendant's untimely challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court stated that at the most, given defendant's failure to voice any objection to the court's charge on the elements of the crime of depraved indifference murder, any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that defendant may be entitled to raise must be evaluated according to the court's charge as given. Measured against that standard, the evidence was plainly sufficient. The instructions to the jury on the elements of depraved indifference murder were entirely unremarkable in light of the then-applicable law. Under those instructions, the jury reasonably could have concluded, after finding that defendant intended to cause serious physical injury, that defendant acted with the recklessness required for depraved indifference murder. Furthermore, under the instructions given to the jury, the jury also was entitled to conclude that the shooting had been committed "[u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life" (Penal Law § 125.25). The jury was instructed that the People were required to prove that "the circumstances surrounding the defendant's reckless conduct was [ sic] so brutal, so call[o]us and extremely dangerous and inhumane as to demonstrate an attitude of total and utter disregard for the life of the endangered person, and, therefore, so blameworthy as to warrant the imposition of the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes on a person who intentionally causes the death of another." As this element was charged to the jury, a rational juror could have concluded that the People had met their burden.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals ( 10 NY3d 875), the Court stated that having chosen to manifest its weight of the evidence review power in a writing, the Appellate Division did not say that it assessed the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury, and its opinion did not otherwise offer confirmation that, in fact, it did. The matter was remitted to the Appellate Division so that it could make such an assessment.

On remittal, the Appellate Division stated that it would "now make explicit what was implicit in [its] prior opinion: the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence." The Court examined the pertinent facts and reviewed the arguments raised by defendant and the dissenters, noting in part that each argument was based not on the jury charge as actually given, but on developing case law.

People v Johnson, 67 AD3d 448, affirmed.

Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City Abigail Everett and Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City ( Susan Gliner of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur.


OPINION OF THE COURT


The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Upon remittal from this Court ( 10 NY3d 875), the Appellate Division employed the proper legal standard when it rejected defendant's argument that the verdict convicting him of depraved indifference murder was against the weight of the evidence ( 67 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2009]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the Appellate Division was not required to evaluate the elements of depraved indifference murder as they were interpreted in certain cases decided prior to his trial. Defendant voiced no objection to the court's charge as given and failed to request that any specific judicial interpretations of the elements be presented to the jury. Thus, the Appellate Division properly refused to consider such information when it "weighted] the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the [jury]" People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 10, 2010
930 N.E.2d 765 (N.Y. 2010)
Case details for

People v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FATIN JOHNSON…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 10, 2010

Citations

930 N.E.2d 765 (N.Y. 2010)
930 N.E.2d 765
904 N.Y.S.2d 691
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4875

Citing Cases

People v. Martinez

He did not voice any objection to the court's instructions to the jury on the elements of the crime of…