Opinion ID: 2057283
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: People v Brown

Text: Brown was convicted, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). At trial, an undercover officer testified that he purchased cocaine from defendant and a third person. Defendant, testifying on his own behalf, acknowledged that he was present at the scene of the crime, but maintained that he was there for completely innocent purposes and was not involved in any drug transaction. The trial court then permitted the prosecutor to impeach defendant with prior inconsistent statements his former defense counsel made during a pretrial Sandoval hearing at which defendant was present ( see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]). [1] The record of the Sandoval hearing establishes that former defense counsel spent several hours with defendant discussing his case, describing the People's proof and preparing him in the event he decided to testify at trial. During the first day of the two-day hearing, the prosecutor requested a ruling from the court permitting the People, if defendant testified at trial, to cross-examine him with respect to numerous prior convictions, including those involving the sale, attempted sale and possession of drugs, and his frequent use of aliases and other false pedigree information. Defense counsel requested the court to limit the prosecution's use of defendant's extensive criminal history and, in addition, sought an advance ruling that, should defendant testify at trial, his version of the facts would not open the door to impeachment with bad acts excluded under the court's Sandoval ruling. In seeking that in limine ruling from the court, counsel explained that defendant was the only source of testimony in his own defense and that he expected defendant to testify that he was there to purchase cocaine, not to sell cocaine. Counsel further stated that defendant is going to own up to having purchased cocaine in the past and will testify that he supported his use of cocaine through a legitimate job as a bartender. Counsel then urged the court to fashion its Sandoval ruling so as to allow defendant to take the stand and tell his side of the story. The following day, after further extensive consultation with his client and immediately after the court issued the Sandoval ruling, defense counsel again sought to insure that defendant's expected trial testimony would not open the door to impeachment on matters excluded by the court's ruling. Thereafter, defendant made certain complaints about defense counsel and requested the appointment of new counsel. Defendant, however, did not claim that counsel misrepresented his proposed testimony. After defendant testified at trial in a manner inconsistent with his former counsel's statements at the Sandoval hearing, the prosecutor sought to use counsel's statements to impeach defendant. The trial court granted the prosecutor's application, finding that defendant was the only source of the information for counsel's statements at the Sandoval hearing concerning defendant's proposed testimony and that counsel was acting as defendant's authorized agent in making those statements. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction (282 AD2d 312), holding that the trial court properly permitted the prosecutor to impeach defendant with pre-trial statements made by his prior defense counsel in open court in defendant's presence which conflicted with defendant's trial testimony. ( Id. at 312.) The Court concluded that defendant was the only possible source of the information, that counsel was delineating defendant's intended testimony and was not speaking hypothetically, that defendant specifically authorized counsel's statements and, even if he did not, that the statements were binding upon him because the attorney made them as defendant's authorized agent at the Sandoval hearing. ( Id. at 313.) We now affirm.