Opinion
January 9, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that reversible error took place when the trial court failed to redact a portion of his videotaped statement in which he stated that he had possessed an illegal firearm on a prior occasion, thereby making a reference to an uncharged crime. However, any error associated with not redacting that portion of the videotape was harmless due to the instruction of the court and the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court's limiting instructions, given immediately after the showing of the videotape and during the charge, obviated any potential prejudice to the defendant by ensuring that the jury did not employ the challenged evidence for an improper purpose (see, People v. Randall, 177 A.D.2d 661). Further, any error was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v. Jones, 182 A.D.2d 708; People v. Bolling, 167 A.D.2d 345).
The defendant claims that the court improperly interjected itself into the proceedings through cross-examination and by repeating the answers of the witnesses. To the extent that this claim is preserved for appellate review, it is without merit. The record indicates that the trial court only intervened to the extent of clarifying the testimony and ensuring that the jury heard and understood the evidence presented (see, People v Robinson, 137 A.D.2d 564). Finally, the defendant was not denied a fair trial where he was absent from a pre-charge conference, as the defendant had no right to be present where only questions of law or procedure were discussed (see, People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469). O'Brien, J.P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.