Opinion
July 8, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court's denial of his request to record the sidebar conferences violated Judiciary Law § 295 and that a reversal of his conviction is warranted. We disagree.
The defendant waived his right to be present at voir dire sidebar conferences, stating that he would rely on his counsel's judgment. As his counsel made no requests to have the sidebar conferences recorded, and there has been no demonstration that the defendant was prejudiced by the absence of a record of these conferences, a reversal of his conviction is not warranted ( see, People v. Harrison, 85 N.Y.2d 794; People v. Battle, 221 A.D.2d 648; People v. Cameron, 219 A.D.2d 662).
Also unavailing is the defendant's contention that the court's Sandoval ruling improperly compromised his ability to testify in his own defense. Exclusion of a defendant's prior bad acts for impeachment purposes rests "`largely, if not completely', within the sound discretion of the trial court'" ( People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709, 714, quoting People v. Shields, 46 N.Y.2d 764, 765; see also, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459; People v. Thomas, 198 A.D.2d 531, 531-532). The court properly balanced the prejudicial effect against the probative value ( see, People v Walker, supra; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) in allowing the People to inquire about the defendant's prior theft and trespass convictions, and about the underlying facts of the violations of protective orders. These offenses involve the defendant's credibility and demonstrate his willingness "to further [his] self-interest at the expense of society or in derogation of the interest of others" ( People v. Sandoval, supra, at 377; People v. Marsala, 122 A.D.2d 80; People v. Byrd, 173 A.D.2d 549). O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.