## Facts

- Louise Sorge was tried in New York for the crime of abortion.
- The prosecution’s evidence on the charged abortion was sufficient to support the verdict, and credibility disputes were for the jury.
- Sorge testified in her own defense.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned Sorge about allegedly performing abortions on four other women, asked whether she had signed a statement admitting to one such abortion, and inquired whether that episode led to her guilty plea to practicing medicine without a license.
- The prosecutor also asked whether Sorge had been present while a fifth abortion was performed.
- Sorge denied the other-abortion allegations and argued on appeal that this collateral questioning was improper and prejudicial.

## Issues

1. Whether a testifying criminal defendant may be cross-examined about specific prior criminal or immoral acts to impeach credibility, including acts similar to the charged offense.
2. Whether the prosecutor’s continued questioning after the defendant’s denials, and the volume of such questioning, constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that a defendant who testifies may be questioned on cross-examination about other specific criminal or immoral acts that bear on credibility.
- The court held that similarity between the acts inquired about and the charged crime does not make the questions improper.
- The court found no prejudicial error because the questions were supported by a factual basis and asked in good faith, and the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence apart from the challenged cross-examination.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant who testifies is subject to impeachment like any other witness, including inquiry on cross-examination into specific prior vicious, criminal, or immoral acts that bear on credibility.
- Inquiry is not barred merely because the prior acts are similar in nature to the offense on trial.
- Cross-examination into specific misconduct must be grounded in fact and pursued in good faith; the number of questions alone does not render the examination improper.
- Absent prejudicial error in the challenged examination, an otherwise supported conviction will be affirmed.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the conviction, ruling that the prosecutor’s good-faith, fact-based cross-examination about other alleged abortions and related misconduct was permissible impeachment of a testifying defendant’s credibility, even though the acts were similar to the charged offense.


People v. Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198, 93 N.E.2d 637 (N.Y. 1950)