Opinion
06-05-2024
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Brad MCPHERSON, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Elisabeth R. Calcaterra of counsel), for appellant. Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Rhys Johnson and Thomas B. Litsky of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Elisabeth R. Calcaterra of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Rhys Johnson and Thomas B. Litsky of counsel), for respondent.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (William Garnett, J.), rendered December 5, 2019, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) did not deprive him of a fair trial. The ruling reflected a proper balance between the probative value of the proffered evidence on the issue of the defendant’s credibility and the danger of prejudice to the defendant (see id. at 375, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413; People v. Cooper, 224 A.D.3d 925, 926, 206 N.Y.S.3d 674). The court correctly determined that certain prior convictions bore directly upon the defendant’s credibility and willingness to place his interests above those of society. "Considering the length of the defendant’s period of incarceration in the years between those prior convictions and the trial in this matter, those convictions were not so remote in time as to mandate preclusion" (People v. Lombardo, 151 A.D.3d 887, 887, 58 N.Y.S.3d 401; see People v. Giddens, 161 A.D.3d 1191, 1192, 78 N.Y.S.3d 355). Further, in prohibiting the People from eliciting the nature or the underlying facts of any of the defendant’s prior convictions, the court avoided any undue prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Lombardo, 151 A.D.3d at 887-888, 58 N.Y.S.3d 401). Thus, "[t]he defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the prejudicial effect of the evidence of his prior convictions so outweighed the probative worth of that evidence that exclusion was warranted" (People v. Walker, 141 A.D.3d 678, 678, 36 N.Y.S.3d 182). BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, DOWLING and LOVE, JJ., concur.