PEOPLE v. LAMBERT (2018)

This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant's request for a hearing pursuant to People v. Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [Ct App 1974]. Defendant was indicted by Sullivan County Grand Jury Indictment No.169S–2017.¹ The sole count in the Indictment is Aggravated Harassment of an Employee by an Inmate pursuant to Penal Law § 240.32, a Class E felony.² Defendant is charged with throwing liquid out of his cell onto the faces, backs, and/or shoulders of two (2) correctional officers on or about August 10, 2015. The People allege that the liquid thrown by Defendant was his urine.

The record before this Court indicates Defendant was convicted on October 25, 2016 with Attempted Promoting Prison Contraband in the 1st Degree, a Class E felony.³ Defendant also has a Youthful Offender adjudication of a felony, for which he was incarcerated on at the time of his October 25, 2016 conviction.

The Court held a Sandoval hearing on April 6, 2018. The People requested to use Defendant's prior conviction of Attempted Promoting Prison Contraband in the 1st Degree in order to impeach Defendant's credibility should he choose to testify. The People do not request use of the Defendant's Youthful Offender adjudication for Sandoval purposes. Defendant argued that, considering his current Indictment of Aggravated Harassment of an Employee by an Inmate, the jury will already be aware that Defendant has a criminal history. In essence, the jury will “connect the dots.” As such, the probative value of allowing testimony regarding Defendant's prior conviction will not outweigh the unfair prejudicial effect against the Defendant. Further, the Defendant argues that allowing such testimony will have a chilling effect on Defendant's right to testify. The People contend that a limiting instruction would suffice to negate any unfair prejudicial effect.

Pursuant to Sandoval, supra, this Court may exercise its discretion to make an advance ruling as to the use by the People of the Defendant's prior convictions for the purposes of impeaching the Defendant's credibility should he choose to testify on his own behalf. The ruling on the admissibility must balance between the probative value of prior convictions and the risk of their unfair prejudicial effect on the Defendant. Id. See also, People v. Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241 (Ct App. 1969). This determination depends on the individual facts and circumstances of each case. Sandoval, supra.

It is this Court's opinion that the unfair prejudicial effect of Defendant's prior conviction in order to impeach the Defendant's credibility should he decide to testify on his own behalf substantially outweighs any probative value gained in allowing such testimony. As the Defendant succinctly pointed out, Defendant's current Indictment makes it abundantly clear to the jury that he is an inmate at a correctional facility and the jury will “connect the dots” in determining that Defendant has a criminal history. Further, Defendant may unfairly be forced to waive his right to testify on his own behalf based upon the belief that the cross-examination regarding his prior conviction will unfairly prejudice the jury against him.

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Defendant's request pursuant to People v. Sandoval is granted, in that the People may not use Defendant's prior conviction of Attempted Promoting Prison Contraband in the 1st Degree to impeach Defendant's credibility should Defendant choose to testify on his own behalf.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although the instant alleged conduct occurred in 2015, Defendant was not indicted for same until on or about November 8, 2017 by the within Indictment # 169S–2017.

2.   In the event Defendant is convicted of the instant offense, he will not be considered as a Second Felony Offender for sentencing purposes, as the incident alleged in this Indictment occurred prior to Defendant's previous conviction.

3.   Defendant pled guilty and waived trial on this conviction.

Frank J. LaBuda, J.