People v Johnson
2007 NY Slip Op 08477 [45 AD3d 606]
November 7, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Xavier Johnson, Appellant.

[*1]Ronald S. Nir, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y.Brodt, and John F. McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.

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 resistingarrest, 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 ofuncharged crimes or prior bad acts (see generally People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350[1981]). There was testimony regarding the defendant's status as a parolee, to which thedefendant did not object, thus failing to preserve his contention for appellate review. In anyevent, although such testimony implicitly informed the jury of his prior bad acts, it wasnonetheless admissible to complete the narrative of the crime charged (see People v Campbell, 7 AD3d409, 410 [2004]; People v Davis, 169 AD2d 774, 775 [1991]). Additionally, thecourt provided the jury with appropriate limiting instructions immediately after the challengedtestimony was elicited (see People v Chestnut, 254 AD2d 525, 526 [1998]; People vCorrea, 246 AD2d 552, 553 [1998]; People v Davis, 169 AD2d at 775).

Further, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for acontinuance, since the defendant did not show that the proposed defense witness, who twicefailed to appear, would present testimony material to the case (see People v Arroyo, 77NY2d 947, 948 [1991]; People v Singleton, 41 NY2d 402, 406 [1977]; People v Payton, 31 AD3d 580,581 [2006]; People v [*2]Edwards, 3 AD3d 504 [2004]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.