The People, etc., respondent, v. Latchman Arjune, appellant. (2026)

Argued—April 27, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

Q/

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mark D. Cohen, J.), rendered January 14, 2019, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of his right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing (see People v. Arroyave, 49 N.Y.2d 264, 270).  The record reveals that, despite the County Court's willingness to grant adjournments to accommodate defense counsel's schedule, the defendant made an informed and voluntary decision to relieve his counsel and retain new counsel on the eve of trial (see People v. Goodwine, 46 AD3d 702, 702;  People v. Ambrose, 147 A.D.2d 577, 578).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by the County Court's exclusion of a certain text message from evidence (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Delgado, 221 AD3d 909, 911;  People v. Gentile, 73 AD3d 944, 945).  In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit.  A defendant's right to present a defense is not absolute (see People v. Hayes, 17 NY3d 46, 53), and the trial court has wide latitude to exclude evidence that is repetitive, is only marginally relevant, or poses an undue risk of confusion of the issues (see People v. Jack, 149 AD3d 779, 780;  People v. Bowen, 67 AD3d 1022, 1023).  Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not err in excluding the text message on the basis that it was repetitive, only marginally relevant, and posed an undue risk of confusion of the issues (see People v. Lin Li, 207 AD3d 566, 569;  People v. Jack, 149 AD3d at 780).

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ).  In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5];  People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410;  People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).  Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon the jury's note to the court asking questions about the defendant's criminal history, among other things.  The court provided the jury with a curative instruction sufficient to dispel any prejudice, and the defendant did not object to the court's curative instruction or request any additional curative instructions (see People v. Dragani, 204 AD3d 690, 691;  People v. Boston, 296 A.D.2d 576, 577).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHAMBERS, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court