Opinion
2018–00967 Ind.No. 356/16
03-25-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Marvin HERRERA–MACHUCA, Appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley, Laurie K. Gibbons, and Cristin N. Connell of counsel), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley, Laurie K. Gibbons, and Cristin N. Connell of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor improperly elicited hearsay testimony from the complainant that did not fall within the prompt outcry exception to the rule against hearsay (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to admit the complainant's testimony regarding her conversation with the defendant about reporting the abuse, since that testimony was offered as proof of the complainant's state of mind rather than for its truth (see People v. Gibian, 76 A.D.3d 583, 907 N.Y.S.2d 226 ), and, in any event, the defendant's portion of the conversation was admissible as a statement against the defendant's interest (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 151, n., 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Wiggins, 170 A.D.3d 1204, 97 N.Y.S.3d 144 ; People v. McPhillips, 133 A.D.3d 785, 21 N.Y.S.3d 134 ).
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to permit the People's expert to testify about the behaviors of child sexual abuse victims that jurors might not be expected to understand (see People v. Spicola, 16 N.Y.3d 441, 922 N.Y.S.2d 846, 947 N.E.2d 620 ; People v. Young, 113 A.D.3d 799, 978 N.Y.S.2d 863 ; People v. Persaud, 98 A.D.3d 527, 949 N.Y.S.2d 431 ).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly impeded his ability to present a defense by curtailing his cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Lyons, 81 N.Y.2d 753, 593 N.Y.S.2d 776, 609 N.E.2d 129 ; People v. Mayo, 17 A.D.3d 485, 792 N.Y.S.2d 347 ). In any event, although a criminal defendant is guaranteed the right to confront adverse witnesses through cross-examination, the trial court has broad discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination when the questions are irrelevant or only marginally relevant, concern collateral issues, or pose a danger of misleading the jury (see People v. Francisco, 44 A.D.3d 870, 843 N.Y.S.2d 439 ; People v. Cato, 5 A.D.3d 394, 772 N.Y.S.2d 548 ). Here, the court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of the complainant because the excluded line of questioning, by which the defendant would have attempted to establish that the complainant had a motive to fabricate her testimony, was too remote and speculative and lacked any factual basis (see People v. McGlothin, 6 A.D.3d 462, 773 N.Y.S.2d 883 ; People v. Barney, 277 A.D.2d 460, 715 N.Y.S.2d 758 ; People v. Stewart, 188 A.D.2d 626, 591 N.Y.S.2d 483 ). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the court's rulings did not deprive the defendant of the right to present a defense (see People v. Monroe, 30 A.D.3d 616, 817 N.Y.S.2d 150 ; People v. Sawyer, 304 A.D.2d 775, 757 N.Y.S.2d 766 ).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and BARROS, JJ., concur.