Opinion
Argued September 17, 1997
Decided October 16, 1997
APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered November 7, 1996, which affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered in Bronx County upon a verdict convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree.
After conducting an evidentiary hearing, Supreme Court found that in response to a report of a man shot, police officers spoke to a witness who gave a description of the perpetrator and indicated the direction of his flight; that the officers went in the indicated direction and stopped a person answering the description they had just been given; that the person was defendant, who was sweating and nervous; that while waiting for the witness to arrive, an officer questioned defendant, asking him where he was coming from, what he had been doing, and why was he so upset; and that defendant responded that he had been buying dope at a certain location.
Supreme Court concluded that, although the Miranda warnings were not given to defendant, the conversation should not be suppressed, since it was investigatory in nature: the police officers did not know if they actually had the right person and the conversation was prior to the time that a showup was conducted for the purpose of identifying the perpetrator.
The Appellate Division concluded, inter alia, that the record supported the hearing court's finding that defendant's statements were not the product of custodial interrogation.
People v Cruz, 233 A.D.2d 102, affirmed.
Andrea G. Hirsch, New York City, for appellant.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney of Bronx County, Bronx ( Robert L. Moore and Peter D. Coddington of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
That Court specifically affirmed the hearing court's finding that defendant's statements were not the product of custodial interrogation. The court's ruling constitutes a determination on a mixed question of law and fact and, inasmuch as there is support in the record for the determination, it is beyond further review by this Court. Thus, the statements made by defendant in response to the questions of a police officer on the street were admissible despite the lack of prior Miranda warnings.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK and WESLEY concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.