Opinion
June 7, 2001.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Moore, J.), rendered April 28, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 18 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Lynetta M. St.Clair, for respondent.
Lorca Morello, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Wallach, Friedman, JJ.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant voluntarily accompanied the detectives to the precinct, was not handcuffed, was left alone, unsupervised and unrestrained and the initial interrogation was investigatory, not accusatory. Thus, the initial interrogation was not custodial and no Miranda warnings were required (see, People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, cert denied 400 U.S. 851; People v. Walker, 181 A.D.2d 636, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1055). After the police discovered the shotgun used in the crime under defendant's bed as the result of a consent search, they made preliminary or introductory remarks to defendant about the case and inquired briefly about whether defendant desired to make a statement, prior to the administration of Miranda warnings. These remarks did not constitute interrogation, and defendant did not make any statements until after he had waived his rights (see,People v. Tarleton, 184 A.D.2d 463, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 910; see also,People v. Soto, 253 A.D.2d 359, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 1039; People v. Davis, 234 A.D.2d 88, affd 90 N.Y.2d 947).
In any event, it is clear under the facts here present that even if the initial statement were suppressed, we would find that the videotaped statement made by defendant the following day, after having been givenMiranda warnings anew, was sufficiently attenuated from the original statement so as to be admissible.