Summary
In People v Levy (290 AD2d 565), our determination that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in ruling that the prosecution could inquire into the defendant's prior knifepoint assault on a woman was based upon the facts and circumstances of that case.
Summary of this case from People v. CalderonOpinion
1996-11434
Argued October 15, 2001.
January 28, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered November 27, 1996, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Mitchell J. Briskey of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Karol B. Mangum of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, ACTING P.J., ANITA R. FLORIO, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in ruling that the prosecution could inquire as to his past assault on a woman at knifepoint (see, People v. Mendez, 279 A.D.2d 434; People v. Hall, 243 A.D.2d 651; People v. Hightower, 163 A.D.2d 489; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The defendant's past acts demonstrated his willingness to place his own interests ahead of those of society, and were relevant on the issue of his credibility (see, People v. Sandoval, supra; People v. Hightower, supra).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
RITTER, ACTING P.J., FLORIO, FRIEDMANN and COZIER, JJ., concur.