Opinion
December 3, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Corriero, J.).
When police officers discovered defendant exiting the rear window of a pharmacy, he fled back into the store, and was eventually discovered in the basement hiding under a box and in possession of a hypodermic needle. Items in the store had been removed from the shelves and strewn about the floor, including a box of hypodermic needles.
The court's Sandoval ruling permitting inquiry into a prior burglary conviction was a proper exercise of discretion. This Court has repeatedly held that a defendant is not shielded from having prior convictions used to impeach his credibility simply because he specialized in a particular type of crime (People v Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v Cunningham, 160 A.D.2d 239, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 786; People v Coates, 166 A.D.2d 389, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 837). Here, the court struck an appropriate balance by permitting inquiry into one of defendant's two prior burglary convictions but precluding the People with respect to numerous lesser crimes.
Whether the prosecutor's summation warrants reversal is an issue that for the most part is unpreserved for failure to object, and in the one instance that defendant did object, the court obviated any prejudice by commenting that defendant had no burden of proof. Prosecutorial comment that the evidence was uncontroverted need not be construed as an improper allusion to a defendant's failure to testify (see, People v Garcia, 51 A.D.2d 329, 332, affd 41 N.Y.2d 861), and, in the instant context, was fair response to defendant's summation argument that he might have simply been a vagrant "looking for a place to crash", serving as comment on the lack of any evidence to support such a theory.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.