The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203; People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). The court properly permitted inquiry into defendant's prior convictions and their underlying facts, since they were probative of his credibility. Moreover, none of these prior crimes were similar to the crimes for which defendant was on trial.
The court's listing of some evidentiary factors for the jury to consider in connection with the element of forcible compulsion did not constitute unfair marshaling of the evidence (see People v. Culhane, 45 N.Y.2d 757, 758, cert denied 439 U.S. 1047). It was abundantly clear to the jury that the defense position was that the sexual encounter was consensual, and nothing in the court's charge undermined that position.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.