Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard Tinsley, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1972-12-29
Citations: 31 N.Y.2d 905
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard Tinsley, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 905–907

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard Tinsley, Appellant.
Argued December 5, 1972;
decided December 29, 1972.
Arthur T. Cambouris, William E. Hellerstein and Robert Kasanof for appellant.
Eugene Gold, District Attorney (J. Mitchell Rosenberg of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Memorandum. The appellant's right of confrontation was repeatedly violated by the use of his codefendant's ineffectually redacted confession (Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123); and upon this record it could not be found that, the victim's testimony as to identification under somewhat difficult circumstances— this being the only other evidence linking appellant to the crime —"was só overwhelming that the Bruton error.must be characterized as harmless " (People v. Baker, 26 N Y 2d 169,174) and that there was no " reasonable possibility that the evidence complained bf might have contributed to the conviction " (Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85, 86-87).
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the judgment of conviction vacated and a new trial ordered.