People v. Francisco
843 N.Y.S.2d 439
N.Y. App. Div.
2007
Check Treatment

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v RAFAEL FRANCISCO, Appellant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

2007

843 N.Y.S.2d 439

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered November 13, 2001, 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 trial court improperly impeded his ability to present his defense by curtailing his cross-examination of a prosecution witness is not preserved for appellate review (see

;
;
;
;
). In any event, although a criminal defendant is guaranteed the right to confront all adverse witnesses through cross-examination (see US Const 6th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6;
;
), that right is not unlimited (see
). The trial court has broad discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination when the questions are irrelevant or only marginally relevant, concern collateral issues, or pose a danger of misleading the jury (see
;
;
). Here, the court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of the witness since the excluded line of questioning, by which the defendant would have attempted to establish that the witness had a motive to fabricate his testimony, was too remote and speculative and lacked any factual basis (see
;
;
). Moreover, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to limit the cross-examination of the witness on matters collateral to the direct evidence designed to impeach his credibility (see
;
;
).

In addition, the contention of the defendant that the court gave an unbalanced interested witness charge by failing to charge that his alleged accomplice, who testified on behalf of the prosecution, was an interested witness, while charging that the defendant was an interested witness as a matter of law, is without merit (see

, lv denied 9 NY3d 845 [2007];
; cf.
). The charge as a whole, which included the instruction that the jury could consider the bias or prejudice of any witness in assessing credibility, was sufficient under the circumstances of this case (see
;
).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see

).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Covello, Balkin and McCarthy, JJ., concur.