People v. CooperPeople v. Cooper
The court properly exercised its discretion when, prior to defendant taking the stand, it modified its original Sandoval ruling in light of its further evaluation of the credibility issues to be raised by defendant‘s proposed testimony asserting an agency defense (see People v Ramos, 255 AD2d 203 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 856 [1999]). While we agree with defendant that the underlying facts of his prior conviction for fraudulent accosting, in which he sold imitation narcotics to an undercover officer, were not admissible under a Molineux theory to rebut defendant‘s agency defense, they were nevertheless admissible to impeach his credibility. The modified ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]). Although the present case also involved an undercover sale, the facts of the fraudulent ac