Opinion
March 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to the court's failure to instruct the jury that an indictment is not evidence, since the court did so instruct the jurors in its final instructions (see, 1 CJI[NY] 3.04, at 89).
Furthermore, the defendant made no record of any serious translation problems with his court-appointed interpreter. Therefore, his contention that he was unable to understand or participate in the proceedings or that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result thereof finds no support in the record (see, People v. Frazier, 159 A.D.2d 278; People v. Reddish, 156 A.D.2d 195 ; People v. Ko, 133 A.D.2d 850; People v. Rolston, 109 A.D.2d 854).
The court committed error in overruling the defendant's timely objection to the testimony of the arresting officer that he arrested the defendant after conferring with the complainant. This testimony constitutes inferential bolstering and violates the rule of People v. Trowbridge ( 305 N.Y. 471) (see, People v Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819; People v. Bryan, 179 A.D.2d 667; People v Vasquez, 120 A.D.2d 757). However, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, this error must be considered harmless (see, People v. Holt, supra; People v. Bailey, 155 A.D.2d 467; People v. Hart, 140 A.D.2d 711).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they do not warrant reversal. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.