| People v Jones |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02666 [138 AD3d 758] |
| April 6, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Carlos Jones, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Denise Fabiano and White & Case,LLP [Jason Bartlett, Alice Tsier, and Preeti Bhagnani], of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and JodiL. Mandel of counsel; Craig Marinaro on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Ozzi, J.), rendered December 13, 2012, convicting him of criminal obstruction ofbreathing or blood circulation, assault in the third degree (two counts), and stalking inthe fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in fashioning its Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34NY2d 371 [1974]). " '[T]he extent to which the prosecution should be allowed toimpeach the credibility of a defendant is a matter that is generally left to the sounddiscretion of the trial court' " (People v Murad, 55 AD3d 754, 755 [2008], quotingPeople v Carrasquillo, 204 AD2d 735 [1994]; see People v Bennette, 56NY2d 142 [1982]). Here, the court's Sandoval ruling properly permitted theprosecution to cross-examine the defendant, if he testified, as to the existence of, andfacts underlying, his 2003 and 2009 convictions of certain crimes (see People v Brown, 101AD3d 895, 896 [2012]; People v Murad, 55 AD3d at 755; People vJamison, 303 AD2d 603 [2003]). The fact that the defendant may have been the onlypossible source of testimony for his defense increased the importance of his credibilityand his testimony, and did not mandate a ruling prohibiting inquiry about his priorcriminal conduct (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 208 [2002]; People v Edwards, 118 AD3d909 [2014]; People vLopez, 37 AD3d 496, 497 [2007]; People v Cruz, 21 AD3d 967, 968 [2005]). Nor did theSandoval ruling otherwise deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial (see People v Cimino, 49 AD3d1155 [2008]). Hall, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.