PEOPLE v. WOODALL (2001)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15 [1] ).   Supreme Court abused its discretion in admitting evidence defendant had planned to surgically remove his own testicles on the day of the homicide.   Arguably, that evidence was marginally relevant to the state of mind of defendant and thus to the issue whether he acted recklessly (see, People v. Leonardo, 89 A.D.2d 214, 218, 455 N.Y.S.2d 434, affd. 60 N.Y.2d 683, 468 N.Y.S.2d 466, 455 N.E.2d 1261).   The danger of undue prejudice to defendant, however, “far outweighed the minimal legitimate advantage which would accrue to the prosecution from disclosure to the jury” of his plan to remove his testicles (People v. Ward, 62 N.Y.2d 816, 818, 477 N.Y.S.2d 602, 466 N.E.2d 142;  see generally, People v. Scarola, 71 N.Y.2d 769, 777, 530 N.Y.S.2d 83, 525 N.E.2d 728;  People v. Davis, 43 N.Y.2d 17, 27, 400 N.Y.S.2d 735, 371 N.E.2d 456, cert. denied 435 U.S. 998, 98 S.Ct. 1653, 56 L.Ed.2d 88, rearg. dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 670, 472 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 460 N.E.2d 232).   We conclude, however, that the error is harmless.   The evidence of guilt is overwhelming and there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the error (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787;  People v. Santiago, 255 A.D.2d 63, 66, 691 N.Y.S.2d 22, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 829, 702 N.Y.S.2d 599, 724 N.E.2d 391).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: