From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 9, 1990
163 A.D.2d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

July 9, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the admission into evidence of the interlocking confession of the codefendant Leonis West undermined his attempts to contest the voluntariness of his written statement and that reversal is therefore warranted. We disagree. Although pursuant to Cruz v. New York ( 481 U.S. 186), the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a severance, that error does not, under the circumstances, require reversal of the judgment of conviction.

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). To satisfy that criterion, there must be overwhelming proof of guilt and no reasonable possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant but for the error (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). This court has already determined that the admission of the defendant's statement against the codefendant West was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. West, 137 A.D.2d 855, affd 72 N.Y.2d 941). Since the evidence of the defendant's guilt was even stronger than that of West's insofar as it additionally included a lineup and in-court identification of the defendant as one of the perpetrators, we determine that any error arising from the admission of West's statement into evidence against the defendant was likewise harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Crimmins, supra).

We note further that while the prosecutor's summation did contain some improper and potentially prejudicial remarks, the trial court's prompt curative instructions served to correct these improprieties (see, People v. West, supra; see also, People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294; People v. Cuesta, 119 A.D.2d 688).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 9, 1990
163 A.D.2d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TRACY BROWN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 9, 1990

Citations

163 A.D.2d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
558 N.Y.S.2d 129

Citing Cases

People v. May

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against…

People v. Cyrus

The record reveals in this respect that the defendant's statement was even more detailed than that provided…