PEOPLE v. PADILLA (2006)

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered June 28, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

 The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from cross-examining a witness about his sealed arrest record.   Defendant was unable to establish a good faith basis for questioning the witness since the facts surrounding the arrest were not revealed and it was not even known if they involved any “bad acts” (see People v. Francis, 15 A.D.3d 318, 790 N.Y.S.2d 103 [2005], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 853, 797 N.Y.S.2d 427, 830 N.E.2d 326 [2005];  People v. Antonetty, 268 A.D.2d 254, 701 N.Y.S.2d 362 [2000], lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 945, 710 N.Y.S.2d 1, 731 N.E.2d 618 [2000] ).   Defendant's argument that the arrest may have resulted in a disposition of a type permitting the underlying facts to be used for impeachment, such as a youthful offender adjudication or an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709, 712, 622 N.Y.S.2d 223, 646 N.E.2d 444 [1995];  People v. Vidal, 26 N.Y.2d 249, 309 N.Y.S.2d 336, 257 N.E.2d 886 [1970] ), is based upon speculation.   It is equally possible that the sealed record stemmed from a verdict of acquittal or a dismissal on the merits, which would have negated any good faith basis for inquiring into the underlying facts (see People v. Plaisted, 2 A.D.3d 906, 908, 767 N.Y.S.2d 518 [2003], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 744, 778 N.Y.S.2d 470, 810 N.E.2d 923 [2004] ).   The court was not required to unseal the witness's arrest record in the absence of a showing by defendant that any information in the record would have demonstrated the witness's bias in favor of the prosecution or hostility to defendant (see People v. Acevedo, 176 A.D.2d 886, 575 N.Y.S.2d 884 [1991], lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 823, 580 N.Y.S.2d 204, 588 N.E.2d 102 [1991] ). The court's ruling did not impair defendant's right to confront the witness (see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 [1986] ).