Several courts in more recent cases have ruled admission of testimony that a defendant remained silent after being given Miranda warnings was harmless error. See, e.g., United States v. Massuet, 851 F.2d 111 (4th Cir. 1988), cert. denied sub nom., Trujillo v. United States, 488 U.S. 1005, 109 S.Ct. 785, 102 L.Ed.2d 776 (1989); Crawford v. State, 494 So.2d 311 (Fla.Ct.App. 1986); People v. Hairston, 86 Ill. App.3d 295, 42 Ill.Dec. 4, 408 N.E.2d 382 (1980); State v. Gadelkarim, 256 Kan. 671, 887 P.2d 88 (1994); People v. Carey, 156 A.D.2d 983, 549 N.Y.S.2d 272 (1989). Here, the right to speak to an attorney was invoked rather than the right to remain silent.
In addition, the defendant admitted to an inmate, who was incarcerated with the defendant pending trial, that when he choked Scarpati "blood came out". In light of this overwhelming evidence, there is no reasonable possibility that the error of admitting the defendant's statement into evidence might have contributed to his conviction (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237; People v. Nisbett, 225 A.D.2d 801, 802; People v. Carey, 156 A.D.2d 983). Accordingly the judgments are affirmed.