People v. Arjune
This text of People v. Arjune (People v. Arjune) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Arjune
2026 NY Slip Op 04206
July 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Latchman Arjune, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 1, 2026
2019-01876, (Ind. No. 140/18)
Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.
Cheryl E. Chambers
Lourdes M. Ventura
Lisa S. Ottley, JJ.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Felice B. Milani and Melissa Kanas of counsel), for appellant.
Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mark D. Cohen, J.), rendered January 14, 2019, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of his right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing (see People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264, 270). The record reveals that, despite the County Court's willingness to grant adjournments to accommodate defense counsel's schedule, the defendant made an informed and voluntary decision to relieve his counsel and retain new counsel on the eve of trial (see People v Goodwine, 46 AD3d 702, 702; People v Ambrose, 147 AD2d 577, 578).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by the County Court's exclusion of a certain text message from evidence (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Delgado, 221 AD3d 909, 911; People v Gentile, 73 AD3d 944, 945). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. A defendant's right to present a defense is not absolute (see People v Hayes, 17 NY3d 46, 53), and the trial court has wide latitude to exclude evidence that is repetitive, is only marginally relevant, or poses an undue risk of confusion of the issues (see People v Jack, 149 AD3d 779, 780; People v Bowen, 67 AD3d 1022, 1023). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not err in excluding the text message on the basis that it was repetitive, only marginally relevant, and posed an undue risk of confusion of the issues (see People v Lin Li, 207 AD3d 566, 569; People v Jack, 149 AD3d at 780).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the [*2]jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon the jury's note to the court asking questions about the defendant's criminal history, among other things. The court provided the jury with a curative instruction sufficient to dispel any prejudice, and the defendant did not object to the court's curative instruction or request any additional curative instructions (see People v Dragani, 204 AD3d 690, 691; People v Boston, 296 AD2d 576, 577).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
CONNOLLY, J.P., CHAMBERS, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People v. Arjune, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arjune-nyappdiv-2026.