Opinion
October 18, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J.).
The court's Sandoval ruling permitted cross-examination of defendant on a conviction for attempted criminal possession of stolen property only to the extent of permitting the People to inquire whether defendant had been convicted of that crime, and whether the conviction was for a felony. The court ruled that the prosecutor could not go into the underlying facts or ask defendant whether he had used aliases in the past. By barring inquiry into the underlying facts, the court adequately addressed the special problem posed by the similarity between the past conviction and the crime charged. (People v. Harris, 162 A.D.2d 195; People v. Cummings, 162 A.D.2d 142.) The court's ruling was a sound exercise of discretion (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas and Smith, JJ.