PEOPLE v. GRANT (2009)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), rendered November 16, 2007, convicting him of harassment in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a new trial.

 Although the trial court is granted broad discretion in making evidentiary rulings precluding or admitting evidence addressing collateral issues (see People v. Aska, 91 N.Y.2d 979, 674 N.Y.S.2d 271, 697 N.E.2d 172), “[a] court's discretion ․ is circumscribed by the rules of evidence and the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense” (People v. Carroll, 95 N.Y.2d 375, 385, 718 N.Y.S.2d 10, 740 N.E.2d 1084, citing People v. Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 57, 538 N.Y.S.2d 197, 535 N.E.2d 250, abrogated on other grounds by Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 120 S.Ct. 1620, 146 L.Ed.2d 577).  “Proof aimed at establishing a motive to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground” (People v. Ocampo, 28 A.D.3d 684, 685, 813 N.Y.S.2d 217;  see People v. Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d at 57, 538 N.Y.S.2d 197, 535 N.E.2d 250;  People v. Barney, 277 A.D.2d 460, 461, 715 N.Y.S.2d 758;  People v. McKnight, 144 A.D.2d 702, 703, 535 N.Y.S.2d 21).   Here, the excluded evidence-which included testimony as to statements the complainant was alleged to have made threatening to “get” the defendant-went directly to the credibility of the complainant (see People v. Ocampo, 28 A.D.3d at 686, 813 N.Y.S.2d 217;  People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 247-248, 597 N.Y.S.2d 975).   Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say the error was harmless (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787;  People v. Ocampo, 28 A.D.3d at 686, 813 N.Y.S.2d 217).   Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.