Majority
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered March 14, 1996, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement authorities.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the People did not meet their
Although the defendant’s written statement to the police was not sufficiently attenuated from his arrest (see, People v Harris, 77 NY2d 434 , 440-441), the admission of this statement at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Flecha, 60 NY2d 766 ; People v Sanders, 56 NY2d 51 , 66-67). The content of the defendant’s written statement, which was largely exculpatory (see, People v Modeste, 247 AD2d 491 ), was duplicative of his more detailed videotaped statement, which was properly introduced into evidence (see, People v Brown, 244 AD2d 347 , 348; People v Nisbett, 225 AD2d 801 ). Accordingly, there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant if his written statement had not been introduced at trial (see, People v Flecha, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Payton v. New York 445 US 573 p. 661
- People v. Levan 62 NY2d 139 at 142 p. 661
- People v. Conyers 68 NY2d 982 p. 661
- People v. Harris 77 NY2d 434 at 440-441 p. 661
- People v. Flecha 60 NY2d 766 p. 661
- People v. Sanders 56 NY2d 51 at 66-67 p. 661
- People v. Modeste 247 AD2d 491 p. 661
- People v. Nisbett 225 AD2d 801 p. 661