Opinion
Argued June 28, 1999
October 12, 1999
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's assertion, the hearing court properly held that his statement to law enforcement officials made before he was given Miranda warnings ( see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) was voluntary and spontaneous, and was not "triggered by police conduct which should reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a declaration from the defendant" ( People v. Gonzalez, 75 N.Y.2d 938, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; see also, People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286; People v. Maerling, 46 N.Y.2d 289). Thus, the court properly denied suppression of that statement.
The defendant also contends that his second statement, taken after he had been given Miranda warnings, should not have been admitted into evidence on the ground that it was the fruit of the prior interrogation. However, this argument is academic in light of our determination that his first statement was properly admitted into evidence. In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the testimony of a surviving victim who had an opportunity to view the defendant over several hours, any error in the admission into evidence of the subject statements, was harmless ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.