Opinion
October 25, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's conviction arises out of an incident in which he stabbed his former wife and her fiance.
Contrary to the defendant's assertion on appeal, the trial court's intrusion into the trial proceedings was minimal and does not warrant reversal of his conviction (see, People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44; People v. De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519; People v Buckheit, 95 A.D.2d 814). Further, although certain statements volunteered by the defendant's former wife were prejudicial, the court's striking of the testimony and prompt curative instructions operated to vitiate any prejudice that might have inured from such statements (see, People v. Soto, 133 A.D.2d 787; People v. Adeline, 122 A.D.2d 61; People v. Samuel N., 121 A.D.2d 405). Moreover, there is no significant probability that the volunteered statements materially influenced the jury to the defendant's prejudice or that the statements distracted the attention of the jury from the principal issue of the defendant's guilt or innocence (see, People v. Samuel N., supra).
In addition, the court did not err in admitting several excerpts from letters written by the defendant to his former wife after the stabbing. Any confusion concerning the relevance or interpretation of the admitted passages should have been explored during the defendant's testimony. The defendant's argument that he was somehow prevented from making such an inquiry is belied by the record (see, People v. Gallo, 12 N.Y.2d 12). Further, although the prosecutor impermissibly attempted to elicit a passage from one letter that was not ruled admissible, this error does not warrant reversal of the judgment of conviction (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179; People v Moore, 134 A.D.2d 530).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.