People v. EmmaPeople v. Emma
Here, the defendant, in his omnibus motion, requested that the court conduct a Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]). Although the court scheduled a Sandoval hearing for the day before jury selection was to commence, the defendant thereafter waived his right to a jury trial and the hearing never took place. The prosecutor attempted during the People‘s direct case to obtain a Sandoval ruling from the court. However, defense counsel requested that the court not make any ruling regarding the permissible bounds of the prosecutor‘s cross-examination of the defendant‘s prior convictions for burglary until after the defendant had completed his testimony. The purpose of a Sandoval hearing, however, is to provide the defendant with “definitive advance knowledge of the scope of cross-examination as to prior conduct to which he will be subjected” so that he can “decide whether to take the witness stand” (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d at 375; see People v Morales, 308 AD2d 229, 232 [2003]). As a result of defense counsel‘s error, the defendant testified without the benefit of a Sandoval ruling. Further, defense counsel failed to raise any objections to the prosecutor‘s cross-examination of the defendant regarding the underlying facts of his prior burglary convictions, which were similar in certain aspects to those of the instant offense. Under the circumstances, we find that the defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel based on counsel‘s failure to request a Sandoval ruling (cf. People v Oglesby, 137 AD2d 840 [1988]).
Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and the matter remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for a new trial.
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant‘s remaining contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief. Skelos, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Skelos, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.