Opinion
May 19, 1975
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 30, 1973, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree and possession of a weapon as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant's appeal is principally predicated on his contentions that a statement with reference to his ownership of a jacket was inadmissible in evidence as a result of police violation of the Miranda rule (Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) and that the admission of police testimony to bolster the identification of the complainant was violative of the Trowbridge rule (People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471) as limited by People v Lagana ( 43 A.D.2d 834, revd 36 N.Y.2d 71) and People v Nival ( 41 A.D.2d 777, affd 33 N.Y.2d 391). He is correct in both contentions, but the conviction should nevertheless be affirmed because the proof of his guilt is overwhelming. The record makes it clear "that there is no reasonable possibility that the [Miranda constitutional] error might have contributed to defendant's conviction and that it was thus harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237) or that that error, coupled with the statutory nonconstitutional Trowbridge error could have influenced the result. As an appellate court looking at the overwhelming weight of the properly admissible proof, we are compelled to reach the conclusion that "'a jury composed of honest, well-intentioned, and reasonable men and women' on consideration of such evidence would almost certainly have convicted the defendant" (People v Crimmins, supra, p 242). Latham, Acting P.J., Cohalan, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.