| People v Boone |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05981 [98 AD3d 629] |
| August 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dewayne Boone, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Danielle Hartman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.),rendered September 29, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he should have been given notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 of astatement that he made to the police. As there was a question as to whether the defendant'sstatement was given voluntarily, the defendant "had the right to have a court review thecircumstances under which the statement was given and to determine its voluntariness, includingwhether it was truly spontaneous" (People v Chase, 85 NY2d 493, 500 [1995]; see People v Pulliam, 62 AD3d814, 815 [2009]). Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to notice pursuant to CPL 710.30(1) (a), and the People's failure to provide such notice should have served to preclude theadmission of the statement at the defendant's trial (see CPL 710.30 [3]; People vChase, 85 NY2d at 500; People v Greer, 42 NY2d 170, 178 [1977]). However, sincethe evidence of the defendant's guilt, without reference to the error, was overwhelming, and thereis no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant's conviction,this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Rivera, 9 NY3d 904, 905 [2007]; People vChase, 85 NY2d at 500; People v Pulliam, 62 AD3d at 815).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion when it denied defense counsel's request to admit into evidence certain recordings oftelephone calls to the 911 emergency number made by unidentified individuals who reportedhearing gunshots on the night of the incident. This evidence was "of merely slight, remote orconjectural significance" (People v Feldman, 299 NY 153, 169-170 [1949]; seePeople v Pereda, 200 AD2d 774, 774 [1994]), and the probative value of the recordings was"outweighed by the prospect of trial delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, confusing theissues [and] misleading the jury" (People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351, 355 [2001]; seePeople v Davis, 43 NY2d 17, 27 [1977], cert denied 435 US 998 [1978]; People [*2]v Downs, 34 AD3d 596, 596 [2006]). Dillon, J.P.,Dickerson, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.