Opinion
September 15, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
We find no error in the determination that the People could introduce evidence of the defendant's previous conviction. The conviction had a bearing upon the defendant's motive because the complainant in this case had been instrumental in persuading the victim of the prior crime to testify against the defendant (see, People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v Smalls, 94 A.D.2d 777). Similarly free from error was the hearing court's ruling that, should the defendant choose to testify, he could be asked whether he had previously been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor (see, People v Jackson, 108 A.D.2d 757; People v Handly, 96 A.D.2d 649).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Assessment of the witnesses' credibility was a matter for the jury (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116; People v Faison, 120 A.D.2d 744). Based upon the testimony of the People's explosives expert, the jury could also find that the substance found within the hand grenade which the defendant was charged with possessing was explosive smokeless powder (see, People v Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 50).
The claimed instances of prosecutorial misconduct at trial are either unpreserved or without merit.
The sentence imposed was not unduly harsh. The People's request that this court raise the defendant's minimum sentence to one half the maximum, in keeping with the defendant's true status as a second violent felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.04), is not properly before us since the People's cross appeal from the sentence was previously dismissed as untimely (see, People v Pratt, 119 A.D.2d 838). Mollen, P.J., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.