People v. Comfort

FRANK J. LABUDA, J. The defendant is charged with arson in the second degree NY2d 269, 274)." Given the potentially inflammatory impact of the specifically heinous conduct of attempted rape in the first degree and attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, the court will limit the prosecution's use of the convictions but not deny prosecution's inquiry into relevant and probative matters of credibility which would otherwise prejudice the prosecution and the fact-finding process of denying the jury access to probative evidence of the defendant's credibility. As in Bennette (supra), the defendant's credibility is an important issue at this trial. Crucial to the People's case is the oral and written admissions made to New York State Police investigators and a New York State polygraph expert. The defendant, claiming among other things that his Miranda rights were violated, that he was compelled by duress to make a statement and that he did not in fact make the incriminating statements as alleged by several State Police investigators, is necessarily putting his credibility in direct issue. The defendant's sexual convictions are not irrelevant to the question of his veracity. However, the convictions clearly indicate a willingness or disposition by the defendant to voluntarily place "advancement of his individual self-interest ahead of principle or of the interests of society" and thus "may be relevant to suggest his readiness to do so again on the witness stand" (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 377). A person ruthless enough to attempt forcible rape and sexual abuse may well disregard an oath and resort to perjury if he perceives that to be in his self-interest. Additionally, it is noted that this is not a case where the defendant's credibility was capable of being impeached by the use of other less sensitive incidents. Thus, it is necessary for the prosecution to bring these particular convictions to the jury's attention bearing on credibility. (See also, People v Conway, 241 AD2d 752 [3d Dept 1997]; People v Lynch, 209 AD2d 827, lv denied 84 NY2d 1034.) A trial being a search for the truth compels the People to cross-examine the defendant concerning his prior conviction for attempted forcible sexual crimes without the necessity of extensive inquiry into all of the details of the sordid offense which would not be justified and would be unduly prejudicial. This court will permit further questioning of the defendant beyond the title of the offenses for which he was found guilty for the purpose of determining, at least in general terms, what conduct gave rise to the convictions bearing on his credibility.