People v. Gonzalez

• Decision Date: 17 June 1985
• Citation: 111 A.D.2d 870,490 N.Y.S.2d 788
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Angel GONZALEZ, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 788

490 N.Y.S.2d 788

111 A.D.2d 870

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Angel GONZALEZ, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

June 17, 1985.

William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Irma B. Ascher, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Roseann B. MacKechnie and Gerard Flanagan, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, NIEHOFF and LAWRENCE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 12, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The court's pretrial Sandoval ruling (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant, for impeachment purposes, about the illegal acts underlying his prior youthful offender adjudication (see, People v. Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 176, 397 N.Y.S.2d 613, 366 N.E.2d 273; People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 264, 367 N.Y.S.2d 236, 326 N.E.2d 804, cert. denied 423 U.S. 861, 96 S.Ct. 116, 46 L.Ed.2d 88) did not constitute an abuse of discretion. There is nothing to indicate that the court did not in fact balance the probative weight of the evidence on the issue of defendant's credibility against the risk that it might be viewed as evidence of guilt or criminal propensity, or that it might deter defendant from testifying (e.g., People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882, 883, 414 N.Y.S.2d 683, 387 N.E.2d 614). We note that the court precluded cross-examination about four misdemeanor convictions. The attempted robbery offense underlying defendant's youthful offender adjudication had a very material relevance to defendant's in-court veracity, as it demonstrated defendant's willingness to place his interests above those of society (see, e.g., People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413, supra). The fact that the prior offense was similar in nature to those for which defendant was on trial did not mandate its preclusion. The People have an interest in exploring a defendant's veracity, and the fact that he might specialize in one type of criminal activity should not shield him from impeachment (People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 147, 451 N.Y.S.2d 647, 436 N.E.2d 1249; People v. Torres, 110 A.D.2d 794, 487 N.Y.S.2d 859; People v. Cherry, 106 A.D.2d 458, 482 N.Y.S.2d 551; People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, 404 N.Y.S.2d 110, affd. 46 N.Y.2d 882, 414 N.Y.S.2d 683, 387 N.E.2d 614, supra; see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216).

We further find no merit to defendant's challenge to the court's refusal to give a missing witness charge regarding the prosecutor's failure to call the complainant's common-law...