People v. JohnsonPeople v. Johnson
- Reporters:
- ,
Defendant‘s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of third-degree weapon possession is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that there was legally sufficient evidence to establish defendant‘s intent to use a baseball bat unlawfully against the victim, not merely against the victim‘s property, and that the bat constituted a dangerous instrument within the meaning of
The court‘s Sandoval ruling, which placed appropriate limits on elicitation of defendant‘s extensive criminal record, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.