Opinion
March 17, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The trial court correctly limited cross-examination of the victim regarding her prior sexual experiences, since the purpose of defense counsel's questioning did not fall within one of the categories described in CPL 60.42. Furthermore, defense counsel made no offer of proof to demonstrate that the questioning was relevant to the defense (CPL 60.42). In any event, the victim's familiarity with various sexual techniques and terminology would not, as the defendant claimed, necessarily tend to prove that she normally engaged in sex for pay.
The pair of handcuffs which the victim claimed were used in her abduction by the defendant and his codefendant were identified by both the complainant and the arresting officer and, therefore, were properly admitted into evidence.
The defendant's videotaped statement was also properly admitted into evidence since, as the hearing court concluded, the statement was not given under unduly harsh or oppressive conditions (see, People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35). We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.