Opinion
December 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The 13-year-old defendant was convicted of murder after he confessed to shooting the victim in a dispute concerning the victim's cousin. On appeal, he argues, inter alia, that the court improperly admitted his videotaped confession. We disagree.
The defendant was questioned about the shooting at various times over a three-day period. He admitted to bringing a gun owned by his father to the scene, but initially denied firing that gun. The defendant denied involvement in the shooting until the last day of questioning, June 26, 1990, after learning that ballistic tests revealed that his father's gun was in fact the murder weapon. Before the confession was secured, however, the defendant, in the presence of his parents, was read his Miranda rights which he then waived. We find no merit to the defendant's contentions on appeal that, inter alia, the confession of June 26, 1990, was in any way "tainted" or rendered involuntary by any prior statement made by the defendant under duress or in violation of his constitutional rights ( see, People v Tanner, 30 N.Y.2d 102; People v McIntyre, 138 A.D.2d 634), and that his parents, who were present during questioning, were acting as agents for the police in securing the inculpatory admissions ( see, People v Ray, 65 N.Y.2d 282; People v Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 528). Accordingly, suppression of the confession was properly denied ( see, People v Tankleff, 199 A.D.2d 550).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.