Opinion
2011-12-27
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Craig BLACK, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Meg D. Holzer of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Meg D. Holzer of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heffernan, Jr., J.), rendered July 30, 2007, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
“A criminal defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to present witnesses in his or her own defense” ( People v. Pitt, 84 A.D.3d 1275, 1276, 924 N.Y.S.2d 121; see Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297). “Moreover, ‘[a] [trial] court's discretion in evidentiary rulings is circumscribed by the rules of evidence and the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense’ ” ( People v. Pitt, 84 A.D.3d at 1276, 924 N.Y.S.2d 121, quoting People v. Carroll, 95 N.Y.2d 375, 385, 718 N.Y.S.2d 10, 740 N.E.2d 1084; see People v. Diaz, 85 A.D.3d 1047, 1050, 926 N.Y.S.2d 128; People v. Ocampo, 28 A.D.3d 684, 685, 813 N.Y.S.2d 217). However, a defendant's right to present a defense is not absolute ( see People v. Hayes, 17 N.Y.3d 46, 53, 926 N.Y.S.2d 382, 950 N.E.2d 118, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 2011 WL 3295435 [2011]; People v. Williams, 81 N.Y.2d 303, 313, 598 N.Y.S.2d 167, 614 N.E.2d 730), and the trial court has wide latitude to exclude evidence that is repetitive, only marginally relevant, or poses an undue risk of confusion of the issues ( see People v. Bowen, 67 A.D.3d 1022, 1023, 889 N.Y.S.2d 645; People v. Celifie, 287 A.D.2d 465, 466, 730 N.Y.S.2d 884; People v. Cancel, 176 A.D.2d 748, 749, 575 N.Y.S.2d 92).
The Supreme Court, under the circumstances here, providently exercised its discretion in excluding testimony of a witness called by the defendant that there was a video camera outside the building where the defendant allegedly completed a drug sale to an undercover police officer ( see People v. Hayes, 17 N.Y.3d 46, 926 N.Y.S.2d 382, 950 N.E.2d 118).