The complainant, as it turned out, had given varying versions of the incident. Hence, the defendant's request for a charge that the identification of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt should not have been denied by Criminal Term. The general instruction concerning the requirement that the charges against the defendant must be established beyond a reasonable doubt under these circumstances did not suffice (see People v Martinez, 28 A.D.2d 913; People v Diaz, 53 A.D.2d 587). In addition, the defendant's motion to bar cross-examination as to his prior convictions in my view should have been granted (see People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The defendant had been convicted twice before — for possession of a firearm in 1972, and for statutory rape in 1965.
(Cf. People v Diaz, 8 A.D.2d 732; People v Martinez, 28 A.D.2d 913.) Concur — Markewich, J.P., Lupiano, Birns, Nunez and Yesawich, JJ.