People v. Williams
People v. Williams
Opinion
| People v Williams |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 05818 |
| Decided on November 21, 2024 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on November 21, 2024
No. 96
v
Brandon Williams, Appellant.
Steven R. Berko, for appellant.
Christopher J. Blira-Koessler, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Assuming, without deciding, that the introduction of codefendant's statement was a Bruton error (see Bruton v United States, 391 US 123 [1968]), any such error was harmless. The evidence of defendant's guilt, specifically the incriminating testimony of two acquaintances who were eyewitnesses to the crime, was overwhelming and there is no reasonable possibility that the admission of codefendant's statement affected the verdict (see People v Cedeno, 27 NY3d 110, 121-122 [2016]; People v Hardy, 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241 [1975]).
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.
Decided November 21, 2024
Opinion
| People v Williams |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 05818 |
| Decided on November 21, 2024 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on November 21, 2024
No. 96
v
Brandon Williams, Appellant.
Steven R. Berko, for appellant.
Christopher J. Blira-Koessler, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Assuming, without deciding, that the introduction of codefendant's statement was a Bruton error (see Bruton v United States, 391 US 123 [1968]), any such error was harmless.
The evidence of defendant's guilt, specifically the incriminating testimony of two acquaintances who were eyewitnesses to the crime, was overwhelming and there is no reasonable possibility that the admission of codefendant's statement affected the verdict (see People v Cedeno, 27 NY3d 110, 121-122 [2016]; People v Hardy, 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241 [1975]).
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.
Decided November 21, 2024
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.