Opinion
August 25, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict of guilty of the two counts of sodomy in the first degree. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the jury's determination that defendant placed his penis in the teenage victim's anus was not against the weight of evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
The trial court properly modified its Sandoval ruling and allowed the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant concerning the underlying facts of two 1987 robbery convictions, defendant's direct testimony concerning why he had approached the victim having opened the door to further inquiry. A Sandoval ruling does not allow a defendant to deceive the jury and be free from confrontation. A defendant who takes the stand is obliged to speak truthfully and accurately (People v. Santiago, 169 A.D.2d 557, 558, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 1000). Absent a showing of prejudice, defendant's argument that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine him concerning his use of aliases is also without merit (People v Mojias, 184 A.D.2d 424, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 764).
Defendant's claim that the trial court did not give him meaningful notice of a jury note is not preserved for review as a matter of law, trial counsel being present when the note and response thereto were read by the court and having had a full opportunity to suggest an appropriate response (see, People v DeRosario, 81 N.Y.2d 801).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.