PEOPLE v. GARDNER (2001)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20[1] ).   We reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Contrary to defendant's contentions, County Court's Sandoval ruling did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709, 712, 622 N.Y.S.2d 223, 646 N.E.2d 444), and defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   Defendant further contends that the court erred in excluding evidence that the victim had expressed suicidal thoughts prior to the incident in which defendant shot him, offered by defendant as evidence that the victim intentionally provoked the shooting and thus that defendant's conduct was justified.   Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in excluding that evidence, we conclude that the error is harmless.   Five eyewitnesses testified that the victim made no verbal threats or menacing gestures immediately prior to the shooting.   The proof of guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the jury would otherwise have acquitted defendant (see, People v. Bruner, 222 A.D.2d 738, 634 N.Y.S.2d 862, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 981, 649 N.Y.S.2d 387, 672 N.E.2d 613;  see generally, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).   The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.   We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: