Opinion
July 8, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant claims, inter alia, that he was denied a fair trial because the court precluded him from introducing evidence that Anthony Belgrave was the perpetrator of the crime. While the defendant does have a right to introduce such testimony ( Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284), the evidence must do more than raise a mere suspicion that another person committed the crime. There must be a clear link between the third party and the crime ( People v. Aulet, 111 A.D.2d 822; State v. Harman, ___ W Va ___, 270 S.E.2d 146; Brown v. United States, 409 A.2d 1093 [DC]; State v. Williams, 575 S.W.2d 838 [Mo]; Fortson v. State, 269 Ind. 161, 379 N.E.2d 147; Commonwealth v. Graziano, 368 Mass. 325, 331 N.E.2d 808; Hale v. United States, 25 F.2d 430; Greenfield v. People, 85 N.Y. 75).
In the instant case, defendant failed to establish such a link. The only connection between Belgrave and the crime was that Belgrave matched the description given by the complainant, and defense counsel stated that he had information that Belgrave was responsible. Nonetheless, the court allowed counsel to show the identifying witness a photograph of Belgrave. When she stated that he did not look familiar, the court properly precluded further inquiry. Trial counsel did not produce evidentiary material tending to connect Belgrave with the crime. Bold assertions that Belgrave was the perpetrator and the mere fact that he matched the description are insufficient to allow extended inquiry into irrelevant, speculative and potentially confusing areas. Consequently, the court's limitation of defense counsel regarding Belgrave was appropriate.
Defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Thompson, J.P, Brown, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.