Opinion
December 7, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's statement to a police detective was redacted to eliminate any reference to the codefendant at their joint trial. The defendant contends that this redaction was prejudicial and therefore the Trial Judge should have granted a severance. The defendant's contention with respect to a severance is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v McGee, 68 N.Y.2d 328). In any event, we note that the defendant was not prejudiced by the redaction since it merely changed "they" to "I", and the Trial Judge did not limit the defense counsel in his cross-examination of the detective regarding inconsistencies in his previous testimony about the statement. Furthermore, the Trial Judge did not err in instructing the jury that the statement was binding only as to the defendant (see, 1 CJI[NY] 11.00; cf., People v Salko, 47 N.Y.2d 230, 237, motion to amend remittitur granted 47 N.Y.2d 1010, rearg denied 47 N.Y.2d 1010, 1012).
The Trial Judge's charge on accomplice liability was not erroneous since it informed the jury that the defendant had to act with the mental culpability required for commission of the crimes charged. The Trial Judge instructed the jury that the People were required to prove the element of intent with respect to each of the crimes (see, e.g., People v Newton, 120 A.D.2d 751, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 759; People v Compitiello, 118 A.D.2d 720, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 941; Penal Law § 20.00). Finally, the example used by the Trial Judge in his instructions to illustrate that mere presence is insufficient to establish accessorial liability was not prejudicial to the defendant. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.