| People v Bowen |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08833 [67 AD3d 1022] |
| November 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AkoBowen, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Shulamit RosenblumNemec, and Judith Aarons of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGuidice, J.), rendered February 21, 2008, convicting him of attempted murder in the seconddegree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court deprived him of his right to present a defenseby prospectively excluding testimony of two defense witnesses is without merit. "[A]n accused'sright to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense is not absolute" (People v Williams,81 NY2d 303, 313 [1993]). "It is well established that the trial courts have broad discretionto keep the proceedings within manageable limits and to curtail exploration of collateral matters"(People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 56 [1988]; see People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375,385 [2000]; People v Cancel, 176 AD2d 748 [1991]). The trial court has wide latitude toexclude evidence that is "repetitive . . . , only marginally relevant or poses an unduerisk of . . . confusion of the issues" (Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683,689-690 [1986] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Under the circumstances of this case, thetrial court providently exercised its discretion in excluding the proffered testimony because itwas repetitive and collateral, and posed an undue risk of confusion of the issues (see People v DeBerry, 17 AD3d480 [2005]; People v Celifie, 287 AD2d 465, 466 [2001]; People v Cancel,176 AD2d 748 [1991]; see also People v Young, 295 AD2d 631 [2002]).
Contrary to the People's argument, the defendant preserved his contentions that theprosecutor made improper remarks during summation and otherwise engaged in misconductduring the trial, because the defendant made his position regarding these objections known to thetrial court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626, 627 [2007]). However, thedefendant's contentions are without merit. The challenged remarks and conduct were eitherresponsive to arguments made by defense counsel, constituted fair comment on the evidence, orotherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Dunn, 54 AD3d 871 [2008]; People v Olivo, 23 AD3d 584[2005]). Mastro, J.P., Belen, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.