Opinion
June 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.).
The court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted the People to elicit that defendant had been previously charged with a crime without reference to the underlying criminal acts, that he failed to answer the charges, and that he thereafter used an alias and false address and social security number, was a proper exercise of discretion, such matters being relevant to defendant's credibility (see, People v. Moore, 178 A.D.2d 561, 562, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 951; People v. Hagi, 169 A.D.2d 203, 215, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1011), and carrying no implication of a criminal propensity to rape (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459, 463).
Since defendant requested an instruction that no adverse inference could be drawn from the fact that he did not testify, and since he did not object to the instruction that was given, he has failed to preserve his present challenge to the instruction given, which, in any event, read as a whole, conveyed the appropriate standard of proof (People v. Cameron, 201 A.D.2d 401; People v. Echols, 190 A.D.2d 532, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1072). Also unpreserved is defendant's challenge to the annotation of the verdict sheet (People v. Spruill, 191 A.D.2d 233, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1020). In any event, the annotations, which merely indicated the date and victim to which each of the virtually identical 42 counts applied, posed no risk of skewing the jury's deliberations (compare, People v. Chaudhry, 186 A.D.2d 48, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 973; People v. Halbert, 175 A.D.2d 88, 89, affd 80 N.Y.2d 865, with People v. Bullock, 182 A.D.2d 593; People v Rogers, 184 A.D.2d 453).
The Court notes, without further comment, that the sentence imposed appears to be unreasonably lenient for the crimes perpetrated.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.