Opinion
March 17, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.).
The scope of the police officers' search of the apartment was reasonably related to the emergency that defendant concedes justified their warrantless entry (see, People v. Rielly, 190 A.D.2d 695, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 891). Contrary to defendant's argument, having received a report of a person shot in the apartment and heard glass and metal breaking inside, the police were not limited to searching for persons (see, United States v Hernandez, 941 F.2d 133, 135-138 [2d Cir]), and all of the items seized were discovered in plain view (People v. Rielly, supra), except the drug ledger, the incriminating nature of which was not apparent until it was reviewed by a police officer (see, People v. Etoll, 51 N.Y.2d 840, 841), but the admission of which was harmless in light of the other evidence connecting defendant to the drug business being conducted in the apartment (see, supra).
The court's Sandoval ruling permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant about the facts underlying prior convictions involving possession of cocaine was not an abuse of discretion, based as it was on defendant's intention to place his character in issue by claiming that his presence in the apartment was innocent and calling character witnesses to testify that he was a law-abiding citizen (see, People v. Brugman, 199 A.D.2d 202). Nor was it error to permit the prosecutor to impeach the character witnesses by asking them whether they had heard that defendant had committed the prior acts of possession, rather than asking merely whether they had heard reports or rumors of those incidents (see, People v. Lediard, 80 A.D.2d 237, 243).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.