Opinion
April 25, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The suppression court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress testimony of statements made by him to a private person regarding his involvement with the incident in question. It is well-established law that if a confession is obtained without the knowledge or participation of law enforcement, it is fully admissible at trial (see, People v. Horman, 22 N.Y.2d 378, cert denied 393 U.S. 1057; People v. Jones, 61 A.D.2d 264, affd 47 N.Y.2d 528). In this case, it was not incumbent upon the court to conduct a hearing, as the law is clear that no hearing is required when dealing with admissions to private persons (see, People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439; People v. Rodriguez, 114 A.D.2d 525). While it is true that a hearing should be conducted where a question regarding the voluntariness of the statements arises (see, People v. Mirenda, supra; People v. Harden, 17 N.Y.2d 470), in the instant case, we reject the defendant's claim that an issue of voluntariness was raised by his state of intoxication, which was self-induced (see, People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, cert denied 389 U.S. 874).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention raised in his supplemental pro se brief and find it to be without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.