| People v Roberts |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03223 [94 AD3d 1151] |
| April 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Saleem Roberts, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and ShulamitRosenblum Nemec of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.),rendered November 23, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly precluded the defense from presenting a witness who wouldpurportedly testify that the defendant made a certain self-serving, exculpatory statement to him."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 Oliphant, 201 AD2d 590, 590-591 [1994]; see People v Haddock, 79 AD3d1148, 1149 [2010]; People vPearson, 28 AD3d 587 [2006]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the profferedstatement was not evidence of his state of mind, but rather a factual assertion which constitutedinadmissible hearsay (see People v Haddock, 79 AD3d at 1149).
The defendant's contention that one of the police officers who participated in the arrestshould not have been permitted to testify that other defendants, in different cases, had given thesame "story" of temporary lawful possession is unpreserved for appellate review (seegenerally CPL 470.05 [2]; People vFarfam, 34 AD3d 828, 829 [2006]; People v Garcia, 294 AD2d 515 [2002];People v Finnigan, 229 AD2d 547, 548 [1996]), and we decline to reach it in the exerciseof our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
The defendant's remaining contention does not require reversal. Balkin, J.P., Eng, Hall andSgroi, JJ., concur.