PEOPLE v. CAREY (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (William M. Harrington, J.), rendered November 1, 2019, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court violated his constitutional right to present a defense is without merit.  “Although a defendant has the constitutional rights to present a defense and to confront adverse witnesses through cross-examination, these rights do not guarantee unfettered cross-examination and do not give criminal defendants ‘carte blanche to circumvent the rules of evidence’ ” (People v. Delgado, 221 AD3d 909, 911 [citations omitted], quoting People v. Hayes, 17 NY3d 46, 53).  “ ‘The trial court has broad discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination when the questions are irrelevant or only marginally relevant, concern collateral issues, or pose a danger of misleading the jury’ ” (People v. Anderson, 235 AD3d 993, 994, quoting People v. Wingate, 184 AD3d 738, 739).  Here, the defendant was afforded the opportunity to challenge the credibility and accuracy of the complainant's testimony and the testimony of the complainant's mother, and the court providently exercised its discretion to the extent that it limited defense counsel's cross-examination of those two witnesses (see People v. Francisco, 44 AD3d 870, 870–871;  People v. Gonzalez, 170 A.D.2d 620, 620–621).  Under the circumstances, the defendant was not deprived of his right to confrontation (see People v. Wright, 160 AD3d 667, 670).

Since the defendant opposed the People's request to charge the jury with course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.80) as a lesser-included offense of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (id. § 130.75), the defendant waived his present contention that the Supreme Court erred in failing to submit that charge to the jury (see People v. Lopez–Miralles, 153 AD3d 936, 936;  People v. Terrell, 78 AD3d 865, 866).

The defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's instruction to the jury concerning the elements of the offense of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree on which they had to unanimously agree is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Ble, 247 AD3d 927, 928).  In any event, when considered as a whole, the court's instructions sufficiently conveyed the correct standards (see People v. Williams, 38 AD3d 925, 926).

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

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.