PEOPLE v. PAIXAO (2005)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered January 23, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant contends that the trial court improperly impeded his ability to present his defense by curtailing his cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and limiting his summation.   We disagree.   The trial court has broad discretion to limit cross-examination when questions are repetitive, irrelevant or only marginally relevant, concern collateral issues, or threaten to mislead the jury (see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674;  People v. Aska, 91 N.Y.2d 979, 981, 674 N.Y.S.2d 271, 697 N.E.2d 172;  People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 245, 299 N.Y.S.2d 817, 247 N.E.2d 642, cert. denied 396 U.S. 846, 90 S.Ct. 103, 24 L.Ed.2d 96;  People v. Messa, 299 A.D.2d 495, 496, 749 N.Y.S.2d 885;  People v. Kinard, 215 A.D.2d 591, 626 N.Y.S.2d 858;  People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 246, 597 N.Y.S.2d 975;  People v. Martinez, 177 A.D.2d 600, 601, 575 N.Y.S.2d 938).   The trial court providently exercised its discretion in this case.   Moreover, the trial court properly excluded evidence of third-party culpability that was purely speculative in nature (see People v. Schulz, 4 N.Y.3d 521, 797 N.Y.S.2d 24, 829 N.E.2d 1192;  People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 728 N.Y.S.2d 735, 753 N.E.2d 164).   The trial court also correctly limited the defense summation to matters of evidence that were properly adduced at trial (see People v. Romano, 301 A.D.2d 666, 667, 753 N.Y.S.2d 873).   It properly sustained the People's objections to defense summation comments that were based on speculation and that violated the trial court's evidentiary rulings (see People v. Bistonath, 216 A.D.2d 478, 479, 628 N.Y.S.2d 738).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor's objections and the trial court's rulings violated his constitutional rights (see People v. Angelo, 88 N.Y.2d 217, 222, 644 N.Y.S.2d 460, 666 N.E.2d 1333;  People v. Tucker, 21 A.D.3d 387, 798 N.Y.S.2d 910, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 833, 804 N.Y.S.2d 48, 837 N.E.2d 747).