PEOPLE v. WEST

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant's contention that his right to be present at sidebar conferences during voir dire was violated. The record clearly reveals that the defendant's right was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived through counsel (see, People v. Keen, 252 A.D.2d 278, affd 94 N.Y.2d 533; People v. Broadwater, 248 A.D.2d 719).

Moreover, a defendant seeking reversal of his conviction on the ground that he was denied the right to be present during a sidebar discussion with a prospective juror must provide an adequate record for determining whether he was wrongfully excluded from a material stage of the trial (see, People v. Pagan, 256 A.D.2d 361). At bar, the record fails to establish that the discussions with the prospective jurors concerned an issue which required the defendant's presence (see, People v. Pagan, supra).

We also reject the defendant's contention that reversible error took place because the court precluded him from introducing a photograph of another individual who he claimed was the perpetrator of the attempted murder for which he was convicted. While due process requires that a defendant in a criminal case be permitted to call witnesses on his own behalf and to introduce evidence that a person other than he committed the crime charged (see, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284), "such evidence must do more than raise a mere suspicion that another person committed the crime; there must be a clear link between the third party and the crime in question" (People v. Zanfordino, 157 A.D.2d 682, 683; People v. Brown, 133 A.D.2d 77 3, 774; People v. Austin, 112 A.D.2d 242; People v. Aulet, 111 A.D.2d 822). Apart from sheer speculation, there was no evidence to establish a link between the photograph of the other individual and the crimes charged.