Case ID: ad3d_149/html/0779-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Jack, Also Known as Ernest Webb, Appellant.
    [51 NYS3d 173]
   Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered November 8, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court deprived him of a fair trial and his right to put on a defense when it redacted portions of a recording of a telephone call is unpre-served for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). 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 [2011]; People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 313 [1993]), 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 Bowen, 67 AD3d 1022, 1023 [2009]; People v Celifie, 287 AD2d 465 [2001]; People v Cancel, 176 AD2d 748, 749 [1991]). Here, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence certain portions of a recording of a telephone call made by the defendant while he was at Rikers Island prior to trial. During the call, the defendant stated, “The [surveillance] video has my clothes in it. . . . But it don’t show my face.” This part of the call was properly admitted as an admission (see People v Chico, 90 NY2d 585, 589 [1997]; see also People v Grant, 17 NY3d 613, 622 [2011]; People v O’Connor, 21 AD3d 1364, 1366 [2005]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in excluding a portion of the recording in which the defendant surmised what a police officer would testify to and why that testimony would be a lie, because that portion of the recording did not modify or destroy the effect of the admission in the admitted portion of the recording (cf. People v Dlugash, 41 NY2d 725, 736 [1977]; People v Gallo, 12 NY2d 12, 15 [1962]; People v Pitt, 84 AD3d 1275, 1276-1277 [2011]; People v Rodriguez, 188 AD2d 566, 567 [1992]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that certain comments made by the prosecutor in his opening and closing statements deprived him of a fair trial, are without merit.

Rivera, J.R, Hall, Roman and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.