Opinion
May 30, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.).
Defendant's presence was not required during discussion between the court and counsel regarding the purely legal issue of whether defendant's prospective testimony might in any manner open the door to questioning by the prosecutor regarding an issue raised by the prosecutor and conceded by him to be based upon speculation ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 85 N.Y.2d 586, 591). Defendant would not have been able to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion of concededly speculative matters and the absence of any reference at trial to such matters indicates that the result of the conference was wholly favorable to defendant ( cf., People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254, 267).
The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in precluding questioning of a lay witness regarding felony classification and statutory sentencing guidelines (matters requiring some legal expertise), while permitting extensive cross-examination of the witness regarding possible motive to fabricate ( see, People v. Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22, 28-29), including, inter alia, the nature of the benefit received for his cooperation in this case. The trial court's ruling regarding the hospital records of this witness provided defendant with sufficient information to conduct meaningful cross-examination regarding the witness's psychiatric history and to argue in summation that such history impacted on the witness's credibility ( see, People v. Arnold, 177 A.D.2d 633, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 853).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.