Opinion
June 14, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in refusing to suppress the statement made by his attorney to the police on the morning of June 25, 1987, hours after the shooting. The facts adduced at the hearing clearly established that the attorney was acting as the defendant's agent at the time and that his statement "I brought my client in to surrender. I believe he shot his wife. You'll find the gun in the room. It will have my client's prints on it," was authorized by the defendant. Accordingly, this statement was admissible against the defendant at trial (see, Richardson, Evidence § 253 [Prince and Farrell 10th ed 1985 Supp]).
We further find that the statement constituted direct evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Licitra, 47 N.Y.2d 554). Since the case consisted of direct and circumstantial evidence, the "moral certainty" analysis does not apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence presented (see, People v. Basir, 179 A.D.2d 662).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620) we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.