People v Mathews
2007 NY Slip Op 04146 [40 AD3d 780]
May 8, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, July 11, 2007


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Wayne Mathews, Also Known as Wayne Mattews, Appellant.

[*1] Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey Dellheim of counsel), for defendant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Phyllis Mintz of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered July 7, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's use of the redacted plea allocution of a codefendant requires reversal since it constituted a violation of the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v Washington (541 US 36 [2004]) is without merit. While the Supreme Court erred in admitting the redacted allocution, which was not subject to cross-examination (see People v Douglas, 4 NY3d 777 [2005]; People v Hardy, 4 NY3d 192 [2005]; People v Cioffi, 24 AD3d 793 [2005]; People v F & S Auto Parts, Inc., 24 AD3d 795, 796 [2005]; People v White, 24 AD3d 801, 802 [2005]; People v Muhammad, 17 AD3d 139 [2005]), the error was harmless since, "in light of the totality of the evidence, there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the jury's verdict" (People v Douglas, supra at 779; see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 240-241 [1975]). Miller, J.P., Angiolillo, Carni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.