52 A.D.2d 682 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1976
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County, rendered December 31, 1974, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of hindering prosecution in the first degree. In the late evening of April 6, 1974, George A. Bulger murdered one John Cusmo on a lonely road near the City of Johnstown, New York, by crushing his skull with a large rock. He then sought the company of his older brother and told him that he had beaten Cusmo. Upon observing the bloodied condition of George’s clothing, Robert F. Bulger, the defendant herein, took his brother to his dwelling, directed him to change his attire, put the bloody clothes in a paper bag in a closet, and secreted the victim’s automobile that George had driven from the scene of the crime. Defendant next drove his own car to the area described by his brother as the place where the fight had occurred and, seeing the body of Cusmo, realized that the victim was dead. Thereafter, defendant took George’s bloody apparel and disposed of it in a trash receptacle. Following his arrest by the authorities, defendant executed a written statement setting forth the details of his involvement with his brother’s crime. On this appeal, defendant asserts that the written statement he gave to the police was involuntary and thus not properly admitted into evidence at his trial. We find no merit in this contention. A statement by a police officer to a defendant that he would report to the District Attorney the fact that defendant co-operated in describing his participation in criminal activity does not, of itself, create any substantial risk that such a defendant would falsely incriminate himself. Particularly is this so when, as here, such a statement is prefaced by the words "I won’t promise you anything” (CPL 60.45, subd 2, par [b], cl [i]). Secondly, defendant maintains that the rule of Bruton v United States (391 US 123) was offended when a search warrant was admitted as evidence at his trial because it contained, in part of the supporting application, his brother’s alleged statements that bloody clothes were located in defendant’s apartment and that he last saw the victim’s automobile keys in defendant’s possession. Had the contested exhibit been introduced at a joint trial, which was not the case here, the rationale of Bruton v United States (supra) would still not have been
