PEOPLE v. HIGHTOWER (1997)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered April 19, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 22 years to life and 20 years to life, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

 The court properly denied defendant's request for a temporary lawful possession charge, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence supporting such charge (People v. Banks, 76 N.Y.2d 799, 801, 559 N.Y.S.2d 959, 559 N.E.2d 653;  People v. Snyder, 73 N.Y.2d 900, 539 N.Y.S.2d 285, 536 N.E.2d 614;  People v. Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 1043, 431 N.Y.S.2d 698, 409 N.E.2d 1372).

 Since defendant had made a statement to the police consisting, under the circumstances, of an admission of guilt, he was properly cross-examined concerning that statement's omission of the exculpatory material defendant presented in his testimony (People v. Savage, 50 N.Y.2d 673, 431 N.Y.S.2d 382, 409 N.E.2d 858, cert denied 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475;  People v. Spinelli, 214 A.D.2d 135, 141-142, 631 N.Y.S.2d 863).   We further conclude that defendant's cross-examination of the arresting officer concerning defendant's postarrest statement and subsequent silence opened the door to redirect examination on the same subject.

The court's Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216).

 We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.