| People v Haddock |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09939 [79 AD3d 1148] |
| December 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JohnH. Haddock, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Hae Jin Liu and Richard LongworthHecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cohen,J.), rendered July 29, 2008, convicting him of failing to register or verify as a sex offender, upona jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Initially, the defendant's contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to presenta defense is not preserved for appellate review since he did not make this argument at trial(see People v Simon, 6 AD3d 733 [2004]). In any event, his contention is without merit.The trial court properly precluded the defendant from eliciting testimony from a prosecutionwitness that the defendant made certain self-serving, exculpatory statements to her (seePeople v Hughes, 228 AD2d 618 [1996]; People v Williams, 203 AD2d 498 [1994])." 'The general rule is that a party's self-serving statement is inadmissible at trial when offered inhis or her favor, and it may not be introduced either through the testimony of the party or throughthe testimony of a third person' " (People v Pearson, 28 AD3d 587, 587 [2006], quotingPeople v Oliphant, 201 AD2d 590, 590-591 [1994]). Although, among other theories, thedefendant offered these statements as evidence of his state of mind, they were essentially factualassertions of his innocence, which constituted inadmissible hearsay (see People vVillanueva, 35 AD3d 229 [2006]).
The defendant's contentions that the sentence imposed constituted cruel and unusualpunishment and also improperly penalized him for exercising his right to go to trial are withoutmerit (see People v Miller, 74 AD3d 1097 [2010]; People v Ramos, 74 AD3d991 [2010]; People v Zurita, 64 AD3d 800 [2009]). Moreover, the sentence imposed wasnot excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Austin andRoman, JJ., concur.