SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

179 

KA 12-01632 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FRANK ARENA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

SCHIANO LAW OFFICE, P.C., ROCHESTER (MICHAEL P. SCHIANO OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MATTHEW DUNHAM OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered March 1, 2011. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the first

degree, robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree and

assault in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

reversed on the law and a new trial is granted. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

following a jury trial of robbery in first degree (Penal Law § 160.15

[3]), robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1]), assault in the

second degree (§ 120.05 [6]), and burglary in the first degree (§

140.30 [3]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the

crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342,

349), we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the

weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490,

495). We agree with defendant, however, that Supreme Court erred in

refusing to allow him to call a defense witness at trial. We

therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and grant defendant a new

trial. 

Defendant and his codefendant were charged with beating the

victim and forcibly stealing property from him. Those crimes were

committed on May 2, 2010. According to the People, defendant’s motive

was to retaliate against the victim for informing the police, in an

anonymous 911 call on April 18, 2010, that defendant was growing

marihuana in his house. Prior to trial, the court granted the

People’s motion to admit Molineux evidence to that effect (see People

v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293-294). During the prosecutor’s opening

statement, she referred repeatedly to defendant’s alleged motive for

revenge, and evidence of that motive was admitted on the People’s
-2- 179 

KA 12-01632 

direct case. After the People rested, defense counsel sought to call

a witness (hereafter, proposed witness) who was on the witness list

submitted to the court by defendant prior to voir dire. The

prosecutor asked for an offer of proof, asserting that the anticipated

testimony of the proposed witness was “tangential to the issues here.” 

In response, defense counsel stated that the proposed witness intended

to testify that on April 18, 2010 — the same day on which defendant

was arrested on the marihuana charge — defendant accused the proposed

witness of being the informant but did not assault or threaten him. 

The court precluded the proposed witness from taking the stand, ruling

that his proposed testimony was “not relevant to the issues presented

to this jury, namely what, if anything, occurred on May 2, 2010,” when

defendant allegedly assaulted and robbed the victim. Defense counsel

objected to the court’s ruling and, after defendant testified and

called several other witnesses, the jury rendered a guilty verdict on

all counts. 

It is well settled that “a defendant’s ‘right to present his own

witnesses to establish a defense . . . is a fundamental element of due

process of law’ ” (People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 312, quoting

Washington v Texas, 388 US 14, 19). In fact, “[f]ew rights are more

fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his [or

her] own defense” (Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284, 302). Thus,

the testimony of a defense witness should not be prospectively

excluded unless the offer of such proof is palpably in bad faith (see

People v Gilliam, 37 NY2d 722, revg on dissenting op of Hopkins, J.,

45 AD2d 744, 745; People v Wilkerson, 294 AD2d 298, 299, lv denied 98

NY2d 772). Instead, courts upon proper objection should “rule on the

admissibility of the evidence offered” (Gilliam, 45 AD2d at 745). 

Here, the People do not suggest that the testimony of the

proposed witness was offered in bad faith, and the court did not make

such a finding at trial. Indeed, there is no basis in the record for

concluding that the offer of proof was palpably in bad faith. The

court therefore should have allowed the proposed witness to testify,

whereupon the prosecutor could object to any testimony she deemed

inadmissible or improper. 

In any event, contrary to the People’s contention and the court’s

determination, the proposed testimony was not inadmissible on

relevancy grounds. As a general rule, “[e]vidence is relevant if it

has any tendency in reason to prove the existence of any material

fact, i.e., it makes determination of the action more probable or less

probable than it would be without the evidence” (People v Scarola, 71

NY2d 769, 777). The proposed testimony was relevant to the issue of

motive, as posited by the People. Having allowed the People to admit

Molineux evidence regarding defendant’s motive for revenge against the

victim, the court should not have prohibited defendant from calling a

witness whose testimony, if believed, may have tended to make the

People’s theory of motive less probable than it would be without the

proffered testimony (see generally id.). 

Finally, the People contend in the alternative that the court’s

ruling was proper because the proposed testimony constituted
-3- 179 

KA 12-01632 

inadmissible hearsay. Even if we were to agree with that contention,

which we do not, we could not affirm the judgment on that basis

because the court did not preclude the proposed witness from

testifying on hearsay grounds and our review is limited to the ground

relied upon by the court (see People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 194-

195; People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d 470, 473-474, rearg denied 93 NY2d

849).

All concur except SCUDDER, P.J., and MARTOCHE, J., who dissent and

vote to affirm in the following Memorandum: We respectfully dissent

because we cannot agree with the majority that Supreme Court committed

reversible error in refusing to allow defendant to call a defense

witness whose testimony was, according to defendant, relevant on the

issue of motive. While we recognize the constitutional right of a

defendant to present a defense, including presenting his or her own

witnesses (see People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 312), a defendant does

not have an unfettered right to offer testimony that is incompetent,

privileged or otherwise inadmissible under the rules of evidence (see

People v Hayes, 17 NY3d 46, 53, cert denied ___ US ___, 132 S Ct 844). 

The mere invocation of the right to offer testimony cannot

automatically and invariably outweigh countervailing public interests

(see Taylor v Illinois, 484 US 400, 414-415, reh denied 485 US 983). 

Such interests include whether the probative value of the evidence “is

outweighed by the danger that its admission would confuse the main

issue and mislead the jury” (People v McKinley, 72 AD2d 470, 474; see

People v Harris, 209 NY 70, 82). Here, the court concluded that the

testimony would not be relevant to the issues at trial. We agree with

that conclusion. The proffered testimony that defendant contacted

another person suspected of giving information to the police about him

two weeks before the incident in question and did not assault that

person is not relevant to the issue whether defendant assaulted the

victim in this case. Indeed, in our view the connection of the

proffered testimony to the alleged assault was “neither apparent nor

logical on its face” (Williams, 81 NY2d at 315). We further conclude

that the witness’ proffered testimony was “not highly relevant and

exculpatory” (People v Cummings, 191 AD2d 1012, 1013) but, rather, it

was “ ‘too . . . remote[] or conjectural to have any legitimate

influence in determining the fact[s] in issue’ ” (People v Barnes, 109

AD2d 179, 184). Thus, in our view, the court did not err in refusing

to allow defendant’s proposed witness to testify. 

Entered: May 3, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court