Opinion
July 8, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that the prosecutor could cross-examine him with respect to the underlying facts of a 1986 youthful offender adjudication for robbery (see, People v Vidal, 26 N.Y.2d 249), and elicit the fact that in 1986, the defendant was convicted of attempted petit larceny, a misdemeanor (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Both events reflected on the defendant's credibility and his willingness to place his interests above those of society (see, People v Boseman, 161 A.D.2d 601; People v Williams, 108 A.D.2d 767). Moreover, the similarity between the prior crimes and the crimes charged did not require their preclusion, as a defendant who specializes in one particular type of crime is not shielded from cross-examination thereon (see, People v Hamilton, 171 A.D.2d 882; see also, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Boseman, supra).
Additionally, the defendant's claim that the statement he made to the police was involuntary is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Jacquin, 71 N.Y.2d 825; People v Stewart, 159 A.D.2d 247; People v Smith, 134 A.D.2d 465; People v MacKay, 98 A.D.2d 732), and, in any event, lacks merit. Immediately after the defendant indicated to the arresting officer that he understood his Miranda rights, the officer asked the defendant if he was willing to answer questions regarding the crime for which he was arrested. The defendant responded affirmatively and without further inquiry by the officer the defendant told him that he was at the scene of the crime, but that he did not commit it (see, People v Giano, 143 A.D.2d 1040; People v Baez, 79 A.D.2d 608). Moreover, the defendant had previous experience with the arrest process and the law enforcement system (see, People v Giano, supra; People v Davis, 55 N.Y.2d 731; People v Mikel, 152 A.D.2d 603; People v Rooney, 82 A.D.2d 840). Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances (see, People v Sirno, 151 A.D.2d 621, affd 76 N.Y.2d 967; People v Rooney, supra; People v Baez, supra), he manifested a waiver of his rights (see, People v Davis, supra; People v Mikel, supra; People v Giano, supra) and the court properly determined that his statement was voluntary and admissible.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.