What is the effect of admitting that a co-defendant admitted that appellant owned the vehicle in which contraband was found?

Finally, appellant contends that he was denied his constitutional right of confrontation by the admission of his co-defendant's statement that appellant owned the vehicle in which the contraband was eventually found. ¹⁰ Neither appellant nor his co-defendant testified at trial; a customs officer testified that during their brief detention along the highway both the appellant and his co-defendant acknowledged that appellant owned the vehicle in question. Introduction of the co-defendant's statement, according to the appellant, violated the principles of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) and was extremely prejudicial, since it provided virtually the only link connecting the appellant with that vehicle.