PEOPLE v. COOPER (1998)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered March 8, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

 The trial court's initial Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion, since “[d]efendant's theft-related convictions were highly relevant to his credibility, notwithstanding any similarity to the present charges ․ and defendant cannot shield himself from impeachment simply because he has specialized in theft-related crimes” (People v. Post, 235 A.D.2d 299, 653 N.Y.S.2d 307, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 862, 661 N.Y.S.2d 189, 683 N.E.2d 1063).  Moreover, in light of defendant's very extensive criminal history in several States dating back to 1964, it was not improper for the court to permit the prosecutor to elicit 12 New York convictions that occurred between 1988 and 1994 (see, People v. Hines, 205 A.D.2d 468, 469, 614 N.Y.S.2d 7, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 868, 618 N.Y.S.2d 14, 642 N.E.2d 333).   Finally, the court minimized the prejudical impact to defendant by prohibiting the elicitation of the underlying facts of those prior crimes (id.).

 The court's modification of its Sandoval ruling was appropriate because defendant's direct testimony was misleading and opened the door for cross-examination on the circumstances surrounding his prior convictions and incarcerations and his motivation for previously entering into plea agreements (see, People v. Ferguson, 190 A.D.2d 610, 593 N.Y.S.2d 817, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 970, 598 N.Y.S.2d 771, 615 N.E.2d 228;  People v. Santiago, 169 A.D.2d 557, 558, 564 N.Y.S.2d 412, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 1000, 571 N.Y.S.2d 926, 575 N.E.2d 412).   We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.