Opinion
June 12, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (McMahon, J.).
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the admission into evidence of her nontestifying codefendant's confession violated her rights under the Confrontation Clause (Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123). While the Confrontation Clause bars the admission, at a joint trial, of a nontestifying codefendant's confession which serves to incriminate the defendant, even where the jury is given a limiting instruction and where the defendant's own confession is admitted into evidence against her, the defendant's confession may be considered on appeal in assessing whether the violation was harmless (see, Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186). Where a Confrontation Clause violation is involved, the error under review will be deemed harmless only where it can be said that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250; People v. Smalls, 55 N.Y.2d 407).
In the instant case, in light of the strong identification testimony of eyewitness David Adamson and the comprehensive and detailed nature of the defendant's own confession (see, People v Glover, 139 A.D.2d 530, 531; People v. Williams, 136 A.D.2d 581, 583; People v. Baptiste, 135 A.D.2d 546, 548), we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have acquitted her but for the error (see, People v. Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750, 758; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
In addition, we find that the sentence imposed was not excessive under the circumstances (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.