Opinion
January 26, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The trial court's instructions to the jury on alibi evidence, which were objected to, improperly shifted the burden of proving the alibi to the defendant and, therefore, denied him his right to a fair trial (see, People v. Victor, 62 N.Y.2d 374; see, People v. Lee, 110 A.D.2d 913). Moreover, the trial court erred by not expressly indicating that the People have the burden of disproving the defendant's alibi (People v. Lee, supra). In addition, the alibi charge was unclear and failed to adequately convey understandable instructions to the jury. Therefore, a new trial is warranted. At this new trial, the trial court is instructed not to apply People v. Sandoval ( 34 N.Y.2d 371) to the complaining witnesses. Cross-examination of a witness who is not a defendant should be allowed with respect to any immoral, vicious or criminal conduct which may reflect on his or her character for truthfulness (see, People v. Memminger, 126 A.D.2d 752 [decided herewith]; People v. Batista, 113 A.D.2d 890). Furthermore, drug use by witnesses at the time of the crime affects one's ability to adequately perceive the circumstances of the crime, and the trial court should allow full exploration of this possibility by the defense counsel, as well as allowing extrinsic evidence on this noncollateral matter (see, People v Freeland, 36 N.Y.2d 518; see also, People v. Knatz, 76 A.D.2d 889).
The defendant's contention with respect to the admissibility of identification testimony is without merit. Niehoff, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.