Opinion
March 31, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Donati, J.).
The court's Sandoval ruling permitting elicitation of the date and nature of defendant's two prior felony drug convictions, and precluding inquiry into any underlying facts, was an appropriate exercise of discretion. The prior convictions bore directly on credibility issues before the jury and the fact that the crimes underlying the prior convictions were similar to the criminal sale charge herein did not insulate defendant from impeachment based thereon ( see, People v. Couvertier, 222 A.D.2d 239, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 971).
Defendant did not preserve his current claim that the court's ruling permitting police testimony regarding the quantity of drugs recovered from the typical drug purchaser compelled defendant to refrain from testifying, because defendant's only objection to the testimony in question was predicated on relevance ( see, People v. McCall, 88 N.Y.2d 838). In any event, defendant's application for a Sandoval modification following the close of the prosecution's case belies his current claim that the ruling precluded his testimony. Further, the testimony was properly admitted as relevant to the issue of intent regarding the large quantity of drugs recovered from defendant ( see, People v. Turner, 228 A.D.2d 331, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 996), and to refute defendant's related claim, presented through cross-examination of the People's witnesses and in summation, that he was a drug user and not a drug seller. In any event, the court struck the testimony, as promised, immediately after defendant indicated that he would not testify or present any evidence at trial and it is presumed that the jury understood and followed the court's instruction ( People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102, 1104).
The court's initial and supplemental instructions to the jury regarding the definition of a sale did not determine any factual issue or indicate any bias on the part of the court, but rather were both appropriate and meaningful ( People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 301, cert. denied 459 U.S. 847).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
We have reviewed defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.