Opinion
January 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court erred when it prohibited the defense counsel from questioning the defendant concerning certain prior false statements he had given the police that were inconsistent with his trial testimony. Although it is well settled that a party may not impeach his or her own witness ( see, Becker v Koch, 104 N.Y. 394; Richardson, Evidence § 6-424 [Farrell 11th ed]), the intent here was not to impeach the witness. Rather, the statements were to be elicited to mitigate the more damaging effect they would have if elicited on cross-examination by the prosecutor and to permit the defendant a chance to explain why he had made the false statements in the first instance ( cf., Richardson, Evidence § 509 [Prince 10th ed]; People v Minsky, 227 N.Y. 94). However, based on the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the error was harmless ( see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Indeed, the defendant's prior statements were less inculpatory than his trial testimony and he was afforded an opportunity to explain his reasons for making them on redirect examination.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.