Opinion
04-06-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Carlos JONES, appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Denise Fabiano and White & Case, LLP [Jason Bartlett, Alice Tsier, and Preeti Bhagnani], of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Craig Marinaro on the brief), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Denise Fabiano and White & Case, LLP [Jason Bartlett, Alice Tsier, and Preeti Bhagnani], of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Craig Marinaro on the brief), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ozzi, J.), rendered December 13, 2012, convicting him of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, assault in the third degree (two counts), and stalking in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in fashioning its Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413). “ ‘[T]he extent to which the prosecution should be allowed to impeach the credibility of a defendant is a matter that is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court’ ” (People v. Murad, 55 A.D.3d 754, 755, 865 N.Y.S.2d 331, quoting People v. Carrasquillo, 204 A.D.2d 735, 612 N.Y.S.2d 424; see People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 451 N.Y.S.2d 647, 436 N.E.2d 1249). Here, the court's Sandoval ruling properly permitted the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant, if he testified, as to the existence of, and facts underlying, his 2003 and 2009 convictions of certain crimes (see People v. Brown, 101 A.D.3d 895, 896, 956 N.Y.S.2d 109; People v. Murad, 55 A.D.3d at 755, 865 N.Y.S.2d 331; People v. Jamison, 303 A.D.2d 603, 756 N.Y.S.2d 495). The fact that the defendant may have been the only possible source of testimony for his defense increased the importance of his credibility and his testimony, and did not mandate a ruling prohibiting inquiry about his prior criminal conduct (see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 208, 738 N.Y.S.2d 663, 764 N.E.2d 963; People v. Edwards, 118 A.D.3d 909, 987 N.Y.S.2d 452; People v. Lopez, 37 A.D.3d 496, 497, 830 N.Y.S.2d 236; People v. Cruz, 21 A.D.3d 967, 968, 801 N.Y.S.2d 65). Nor did the Sandoval ruling otherwise deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial (see People v. Cimino, 49 A.D.3d 1155, 856 N.Y.S.2d 368).
HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.