Opinion
December 15, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Because the codefendant testified at the trial, the defendant was not denied his 6th Amendment right to confrontation (see, Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123). Moreover, since the defendant's and codefendant's confessions were "interlocking" in that they were "duplicative" in their description of the crucial facts of the crime, the probability of prejudice to the defendant by the introduction of the codefendant's confession was so negligible that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial (People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417; see, People v. Cruz, 66 N.Y.2d 61, 64, cert granted ___ US ___, 106 S Ct 2888; People v Brensic, 118 A.D.2d 281). The fact that these confessions implicated both the defendant and the codefendant as the shooter does not require reversal of the conviction herein in light of the interlocking nature of the remainder of the confessions.
Since the defendant denied that unrelated charges were pending against him when he was questioned by the police, it was reasonable for the police to rely on his denial in not conducting a further investigation of whether the defendant's right to counsel had attached at the time of the prior unrelated arrest (see, People v. Lucarano, 61 N.Y.2d 138). Therefore, it was not error for the hearing court to deny suppression of the statement made by the defendant upon being questioned by the police (see, People v. Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Niehoff, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.