People v. Black — 90 A.D.3d 1066

Majority

p. 1066

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Craig Black, Appellant.

[934 NYS2d 850]

“A criminal defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to present witnesses in his or her own defense” (People v Pitt, 84 AD3d 1275 , 1276 [2011]; see Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284 , 302 [1973]). “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 AD3d at 1276 , quoting People v Carroll, 95

p. 1067

NY2d 375 , 385 [2000]; see People v Diaz, 85 AD3d 1047 , 1050 [2011]; People v Ocampo, 28 AD3d 684 , 685 [2006]). However, a defendant’s right to present a defense is not absolute (see People v Hayes, 17 NY3d 46 , 53 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 844 [2011]; People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303 , 313 [1993]), 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 AD3d 1022 , 1023 [2009]; People v Celifie, 287 AD2d 465 , 466 [2001]; People v Cancel, 176 AD2d 748 , 749 [1991]).

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 NY3d 46 [2011]). Dillon, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cases cited

People v. Pitt 84 AD3d 1275 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-05-24 at 1276 p. 1066
Chambers v. Mississippi 410 US 284 SCOTUS 1973-02-21 at 302 p. 1066
People v. Ocampo 28 AD3d 684 N.Y. App. Div. 2006-04-18 at 685 p. 1067
People v. Hayes 17 NY3d 46 N.Y. 2011-05-10 at 53 p. 1067
People v. Williams 81 NY2d 303 N.Y. 1993-05-11 at 313 p. 1067
People v. Cancel 176 AD2d 748 N.Y. App. Div. 1991-10-24 at 749 p. 1067