15.24 - 2. The Sandoval Rule

JurisdictionNew York

2. The Sandoval Rule

A defendant in a criminal case may move prior to trial for an order prohibiting or limiting the use of the defendant’s prior convictions and/or prior vicious, criminal or immoral acts as a basis for impeaching the defendant’s credibility as a witness.2135

The Sandoval decision requires the trial court, in ruling on the Sandoval motion, to balance the probative worth of the use of prior convictions (or criminal, vicious or immoral acts) for impeachment purposes against the possible prejudice to the defendant.2136 While prior conduct similar to that for which the accused is then standing trial obviously has the potential to suggest to the jury “propensity” for the commission of that type of crime, that alone does not disqualify it from use by the prosecutor. However, the similarity of prior convictions, or other criminal, vicious or immoral acts, to the crime for which the accused is then standing trial must be given consideration by the trial court in determining whether to permit the use of such evidence for impeachment purposes and, if so, in what form.2137 “A trial court may limit inquiry to the mere fact that there has been a prior conviction; it may limit inquiry to the existence and nature of the prior conviction; or it may permit examination into the facts and circumstances underlying the prior conviction.”2138 Note that “the possible unavailability of other witnesses does not mandate a specific outcome, as a hearing court may conclude that this factor increases the importance of [a] defendant’s credibility as well as the importance of [a] defendant’s presence on the witness stand.”2139 A Sandoval error is subject to harmless error analysis.2140

Cross-examination of an accused on an unrelated pending criminal charge for the purpose of impeaching that accused’s credibility is impermissible because it “unduly compromises the defendant’s right to testify with respect to the case on trial, while simultaneously jeopardizing the correspondingly important right not to incriminate oneself as to the pending matter.”2141 Where the court has ruled that the prosecution may not cross-examine a defendant regarding a certain prior conviction or bad act, the prosecution may not develop through cross-examination of a nondefendant witness the prior activities on the part of the defendant that the trial court has excluded.2142

Where the trial court has prohibited all reference to a prior crime, a defendant may nonetheless be cross-examined about his prior use of aliases, provided it is not done in a way that suggests the existence of the prior excluded arrest and crime.2143 It should be noted that the Sandoval ruling only limits the prosecution’s cross-examination. It does not apply to an attorney for a co-defendant in a joint trial who desires to examine his client’s co-defendant regarding that co-defendant’s prior criminal or immoral acts.2144 Thus, if co-defendant A is going to cross-examine...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT