Summary
holding that crimes such as rape and robbery are highly probative as to a defendant's willingness to place his self-interest ahead of principle or of the interest of society
Summary of this case from Torres v. GrahamOpinion
January 13, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The trial court's refusal to grant defense counsel's request for an adjournment on the first morning of the trial did not result in a denial of defendant's right to a fair trial, where the request was made some three years after defendant was arraigned, and the trial progressed slowly in order to give defense counsel an opportunity to interview a potential alibi witness.
Neither did the court's Sandoval ruling, allowing questioning only as to the fact that defendant had been previously convicted of robbery in the third degree and rape in the first degree, deprive defendant of a fair trial. Questioning regarding a prior crime is not automatically precluded simply because it is similar to the crime charged (People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282). Crimes such as rape and robbery are highly probative as to a defendant's willingness to place his self-interest ahead of principle or of the interest of society (People v Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142; People v Williams, 108 A.D.2d 767).
Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the sentence in the instant case was to run consecutively to the sentence defendant was still serving at the time this judgment was rendered.
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or not preserved for our review. Lazer, J.P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.