| People v Strzelecki |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05233 [108 AD3d 644] |
| July 10, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Strzelecki, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Efman, J.), rendered November 15, 2011, convicting him of aggravated sexual act in thethird degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, the County Court did not improvidentlyexercise its discretion in conducting an inquiry outside of the presence of the juryconcerning the admissibility of the testimony of the complainant's mother as a defensewitness (see People v Rivera, 293 AD2d 286 [2002]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not deprive him of theright to present a defense by precluding him from producing his sister-in-law as a defensewitness. A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to produce witnesses, and "absenta showing of bad faith, an application to produce witnesses whose testimony would berelevant to the defense should not be denied" (People v Murray, 79 AD2d 993,994 [1981]; see People vTaylor, 40 AD3d 782, 783-784 [2007]). However, a trial court may, in itsdiscretion, exclude evidence that is of slight or remote significance, speculative, lackinga good-faith factual basis, or solely based on hearsay (see People v Monroe, 30 AD3d 616, 617 [2006]; People v Ocampo, 28 AD3d684, 685 [2006]; People v Sawyer, 304 AD2d 775 [2003]).
In the instant case, the proposed testimony of the defendant's sister-in-law regardingthe relationship between the defendant and his wife consisted largely of hearsay, wascumulative to other evidence, and was only marginally, if at all, relevant. Consequently,the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding thattestimony, and that ruling did not deprive the defendant of the right to present a defense(see People v Monroe, 30 AD3d at 617; People v Sawyer, 304 AD2d at776; see also People v Bedi, 299 AD2d 556 [2002]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the CountyCourt erred in admitting certain evidence of the circumstances of a polygraphexamination (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, even if the admission of thisevidence was error, the error was harmless, [*2]as therewas overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant probability thatany error in this regard contributed to his conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establishthe defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibilityto conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hearthe testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410[2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict ofguilt was not against the weight of the evidence.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.