People v. Thompson

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: People v. Thompson, 608 N.Y.S.2d 674, 202 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
• Decision Date: 07 March 1994
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Charles THOMPSON, Appellant.

Page 674

608 N.Y.S.2d 674

202 A.D.2d 454

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Charles THOMPSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

March 7, 1994.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Frederick A. Brodie, of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Gary Fidel, and Elizabeth Fox, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and PIZZUTO, ALTMAN and KRAUSMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), rendered June 2, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the court erred in rendering its Sandoval ruling. We disagree. A Sandoval ruling is addressed to the sound discretion of the hearing court (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 425 N.Y.S.2d 288, 401 N.E.2d 398; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413). We find the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion. The record indicates that the trial court weighed the competing factors when it limited inquiry on cross-examination to five misdemeanors and two drug-related felonies without discussion of the underlying facts (see, People v. Pavao, supra; People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236, 451 N.Y.S.2d 690, 436 N.E.2d 1292; People v. Sandoval, supra ). Further, the mere similarity between the prior felony convictions and the crime charged was insufficient to preclude its use on cross-examination (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882, 414 N.Y.S.2d 683, 387 N.E.2d 614; People v. Hendrix, 44 N.Y.2d 658, 405 N.Y.S.2d 31, 376 N.E.2d 192).

The defendant contends that the undercover officer's testimony regarding the description of the seller which he transmitted to the arresting officer by radio constitutes bolstering in violation of People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471, 113 N.E.2d 841. This argument is without merit. The testimony, together with that of the arresting officer who received the description, provided a necessary explanation of the events which precipitated the defendant's arrest (see, People v. Cardona, 173 A.D.2d 364, 569 N.Y.S.2d 733; People v. Sarmiento, 168 A.D.2d 328, 565 N.Y.S.2d 1, affd. 77 N.Y.2d 976, 571 N.Y.S.2d 906, 575 N.E.2d 392; People v. Candelario, 156 A.D.2d 191, 548 N.Y.S.2d 448; People v. Love, 92 A.D.2d 551, 459 N.Y.S.2d 122).

The defendant further contends that the court's charge on the issue of identification was inadequate. We disagree. The Supreme Court's identification charge was adequate under the circumstances of this case since the court instructed the jury that identification had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and provided the jury with general instructions in weighing a witness's credibility (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279, 464 N.Y.S.2d 454, 451 N.E.2d 212; People v. Foxworth, 197 A.D.2d 703, 602 N.Y.S.2d 929; People v. Nichols, 191 A.D.2d 518, 594 N.Y.S.2d 349).

The closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officer was proper, since it was determined at a hearing that the...