Opinion
June 16, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Upon review of the court's determination of the defendant's Sandoval motion, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the prosecutor to ask the defendant if he had previously been convicted of burglary and rape (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The defendant did not meet his burden of proving that the prejudicial effect of admitting the prior conviction would so outweigh its probative worth on the issue of credibility as to warrant its exclusion (see, People v Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142; People v. Sandoval, supra, p 378; People v. Sorgente, 90 A.D.2d 559).
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, as we must (see, People v. Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196; People v. Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29), we conclude that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
As the defendant's claim that his attorney was ineffective is based on matters outside the record, it cannot be addressed on appeal but may be raised in a postjudgment motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, People v. Leonard, 102 A.D.2d 857).
The motion made by the defendant, after six of the venire-persons were selected, to discharge the jury panel on the ground that there were no Hispanics on the jury was properly denied (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US ___, 90 L Ed 2d 69; McCray v. Abrams, 750 F.2d 1113, reh denied 756 F.2d 277; People v. Bush, 112 A.D.2d 1046).
As the defendant did not object to the presently complained-about portion of the prosecutor's summation at trial, that issue has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law. We decline to address it in the interest of justice. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.