People v. Black

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Black

90 A.D.3d 1066, 934 N.Y.2d 850

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 27, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 1066 (People v. Black) 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.

Bluebook

People v. Black, 90 A.D.3d 1066, 934 N.Y.2d 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

“A criminal defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to present witnesses in his or her own defense” (People v Pitt, 84 AD3d 1275, 1276 [2011]; see Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284, 302 [1973]). “Moreover, ‘[a] [trial] court’s discretion in evidentiary rulings is circumscribed by the rules of evidence and the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense’ ” (People v Pitt, 84 AD3d at 1276, quoting People v Carroll, 95 [1067]*1067NY2d 375, 385 [2000]; see People v Diaz, 85 AD3d 1047, 1050 [2011]; People v Ocampo, 28 AD3d 684, 685 [2006]). However, a defendant’s right to present a defense is not absolute (see People v Hayes, 17 NY3d 46, 53 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 844 [2011]; People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 313 [1993]), and the trial court has wide latitude to exclude evidence that is repetitive, only marginally relevant, or poses an undue risk of confusion of the issues (see People v Bowen, 67 AD3d 1022, 1023 [2009]; People v Celifie, 287 AD2d 465, 466 [2001]; People v Cancel, 176 AD2d 748, 749 [1991]).

The Supreme Court, under the circumstances here, providently exercised its discretion in excluding testimony of a witness called by the defendant that there was a video camera outside the building where the defendant allegedly completed a drug sale to an undercover police officer (see People v Hayes, 17 NY3d 46 [2011]). Dillon, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

“A criminal defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to present witnesses in his or her own defense” (People v Pitt, 84 AD3d 1275, 1276 [2011]; see Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284, 302 [1973]). “Moreover, ‘[a] [trial] court’s discretion in evidentiary rulings is circumscribed by the rules of evidence and the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense’ ” (People v Pitt, 84 AD3d at 1276, quoting People v Carroll, 95 [1067]*1067NY2d 375, 385 [2000]; see People v Diaz, 85 AD3d 1047, 1050 [2011]; People v Ocampo, 28 AD3d 684, 685 [2006]). However, a defendant’s right to present a defense is not absolute (see People v Hayes, 17 NY3d 46, 53 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 844 [2011]; People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 313 [1993]), and the trial court has wide latitude to exclude evidence that is repetitive, only marginally relevant, or poses an undue risk of confusion of the issues (see People v Bowen, 67 AD3d 1022, 1023 [2009]; People v Celifie, 287 AD2d 465, 466 [2001]; People v Cancel, 176 AD2d 748, 749 [1991]).

The Supreme Court, under the circumstances here, providently exercised its discretion in excluding testimony of a witness called by the defendant that there was a video camera outside the building where the defendant allegedly completed a drug sale to an undercover police officer (see People v Hayes, 17 NY3d 46 [2011]). Dillon, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 1066, 934 N.Y.2d 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-black-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack