People v. Walts

1 Citing case

  1. People v. Stevens

    65 A.D.3d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 9 times

    Defendant also claims that County Court abused its discretion by permitting the People to cross-examine her — had she chosen to testify — concerning the circumstances that led to her being previously convicted of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree. These convictions, as well as the underlying acts, are indicative of defendant's willingness to place her individual interest ahead of that of society and were relevant on the issue of her credibility as a witness ( see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 376-377; People v Walts, 267 AD2d 617, 619, lv denied 95 NY2d 859; People v Trichilo, 230 AD2d 926, 928, lv denied 89 NY2d 931). Even if we were to conclude that it was error to allow such inquiry, considering that the jury was permitted to hear a recording in which defendant sought to explain to an insurance company representative why she had initially reported the truck as stolen, "there was simply no possibility — let alone a significant probability — that [her] testimony would have led to an acquittal" ( People v Grant, 7 NY3d 421, 425; see People v Boodrow, 42 AD3d 582, 585).