Opinion
October 21, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's charge to the jury did not expand the theory of the indictment (see, People v. Charles, 61 N.Y.2d 321, 327), but merely provided an example of what might constitute unlawful intent. Moreover, the record demonstrates that the defendant was not deprived of fair notice with regard to the theory of the crimes charged (People v. Charles, supra, at 327; People v. Spann, 56 N.Y.2d 469, 472).
We find no impropriety in the court's Sandoval ruling. The defendant's previous conviction and prior acts demonstrated his willingness to place his own interests ahead of those of society, and were therefore probative on the issue of his credibility (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264).
The trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence of the complainant's showup identification at the hospital (People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 529; People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Harwood, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.