Opinion
May 30, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Because the defendant raised a justification defense, the trial court erred in restricting the defendant's testimony concerning his state of mind at the time of the assault insofar as it related to his belief that the complainant was intoxicated and therefore more likely to use a gun (People v Miller, 39 N.Y.2d 543; People v Guadalupe, 122 A.D.2d 807). The precluded testimony, however, "`was cumulative to that heard by the jury, which was able to consider the justification defense with knowledge of defendant's state of mind at the pertinent time'" (People v Felton, 133 A.D.2d 232; People v Rivera, 101 A.D.2d 981, affd 65 N.Y.2d 661). There was considerable evidence before the jury with respect to the complainant's intoxication, and his access to a gun. Any error in restricting the defendant's testimony concerning his state of mind was therefore harmless (People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Felton, 133 A.D.2d 232, supra; People v Rivera, 101 A.D.2d 981, supra).
Furthermore, the trial court did not err in charging the jury that the defendant was an interested witness as a matter of law, particularly because the jury was further instructed that the other witnesses might be interested as well (People v Agosto, 73 N.Y.2d 963; People v Curcio, 148 A.D.2d 627; People v Melvin, 128 A.D.2d 647; People v Suarez, 125 A.D.2d 350, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 750). Nor did the court err in refusing to charge that the complainant was interested as a matter of law (People v Curcio, 148 A.D.2d 627, supra; People v Melvin, 128 A.D.2d 647, supra; cf., People v Ingrassia, 118 A.D.2d 587; People v Brabham, 77 A.D.2d 626). The trial court succeeded in rendering a balanced charge as evinced by its admonition to the jurors that they should consider the interest of any witness in the outcome of the trial when assessing the weight to be afforded that witness's testimony.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Spatt and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.