Opinion
December 15, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Cohen, J.).
The prosecutor's proper cross-examination of defendant concerning his employment, which inquiry resulted in defendant's unexpected admission of prior drug involvement, was not a violation of the court's Sandoval ruling.
The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting cross-examination of the complainant by precluding defendant from questioning him about his alleged participation in a murder 10 or 12 years earlier for which someone else had been convicted. Defendant's offer of proof was inadequate and lacked a good faith basis in that it was speculative and based upon totally unreliable rumor ( see, People v. Hargrove, 213 A.D.2d 492, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 846).
We have considered and rejected defendant's other claims.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.