Summary
affirming conviction of burglary in the first degree where defendant was "positively identified by an eyewitness ultimately gave the police oral and written statements confessing to the crime" after he voluntarily waived his Miranda rights
Summary of this case from High v. MillerOpinion
February 17, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On December 5, 1983, during the burglary of a residence located in West Islip, Allan Valente was shot and killed. The defendant was suspected by the police of being the assailant. On December 19, 1983, the police arrested the defendant on a bench warrant arising from a prior unrelated charge concerning possession of marihuana. The defendant waived his Miranda rights, and upon inquiry by the arresting officers, responded that he was not represented by counsel on the pending case. Thereafter, he consented to participate in a lineup and after he was positively identified by an eyewitness, ultimately gave the police oral and written statements confessing to the crime.
The defendant concedes that his arrest was based upon probable cause but contends that the identification evidence and his statements should have been suppressed because the police arrested him on the warrant as a pretext to question him as to the murder. However, the defendant's lawful arrest and custodial interrogation is not rendered unlawful merely because the motive of the police in arresting the defendant on one charge may have been to question him concerning an unrelated crime (see, People v. Cypriano, 73 A.D.2d 902, 903).
As to the defendant's contention concerning the alleged violation of his right to counsel, we reiterate that great weight must be accorded the determination of the hearing court with its particular advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses (People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), and on this record we find no basis to disturb that determination. The evidence supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant was properly advised of his Miranda rights and voluntarily confessed. Although the arresting officers were aware that the defendant was involved in other pending criminal charges at the time of the arrest, they were entitled to end their inquiry in reliance upon the defendant's statement that he was not represented by an attorney (see, People v. Bertolo, 65 N.Y.2d 111). In addition, notwithstanding the defendant's claim that certain family members and friends were denied access to him while he was in police custody, there is no evidence of "a pattern of isolation and trickery designed to keep the defendant from obtaining counsel" (People v. Fuschino, 59 N.Y.2d 91, 100; cf., People v. Bevilacqua, 45 N.Y.2d 508).
Finally, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that no basis exists to disturb the jury's verdict (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.