People v. Panaro

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not err in precluding a defense witness from testifying that she heard a codefendant say that he had shot the victim because the victim was an informant from out of State. The statement was not admissible as a declaration against the codefendant’s penal interest because there were no supporting circumstances present independent of the statement itself to attest to its trustworthiness and reliability (see, People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154 , 167). In the absence of such supporting evidence, the exclusion of the proffered testimony does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see, People v Dackowski, 50 NY2d 962 , 964; cf., Green v Georgia, 442 US 95 , 97). There was sufficient nonaccomplice evidence to satisfy the corroboration requirement. "The corroborative glue does not require independent proof of the elements of the crime to sustain a conviction; it just has to bind the accomplice evidence to the defendant” (People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286 , 293). Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that each is lacking in