Opinion
December 24, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.
The defendant contends that the judgment of conviction should be reversed because there was insufficient independent proof to corroborate the accomplice's testimony as required by CPL 60.22 (1). The accomplice, who had earlier pleaded guilty to felony murder charges in connection with the criminal action against him, testified regarding the defendant's actions which resulted in the deaths of three persons during the course of a robbery. We find that the testimony of two nonaccomplice prosecution witnesses was sufficient "to connect the defendant to the crime so as to reasonably satisfy the jury that the accomplice [was] telling the truth" (People v. Glasper, 52 N.Y.2d 970, 971; People v. Murphy, 153 A.D.2d 646).
The trial court denied the defense counsel's request to recall a prosecution witness for further cross-examination regarding his possible bias due to his past experience as a police informant. Although this was error (see generally, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316), we find that it was harmless as the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to his conviction (cf., People v. Simmons, 75 N.Y.2d 738; see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Driver, 150 A.D.2d 718).
The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel is without merit. Counsel's strategy and tactics, while ultimately unsuccessful, were reasonable, and we find that the defendant received meaningful representation considering the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Eiber, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.