Opinion
Argued November 16, 1988
Decided December 15, 1988
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Grajales, J.
Carol A. Zeldin and Philip A. Weinstein for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Barbara D. Underwood and Cheryl Swanson Miller of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The undisturbed factual findings regarding the voluntariness of defendant's statements are supported by the record and are therefore beyond our further review. Moreover, under the facts and circumstances surrounding the interrogation of defendant, it cannot be said that as a matter of law defendant's confessions were the products of unlawful promises or representations made by the police. Additionally, although the charge to the jury was not the model of clarity, taken as a whole it adequately conveyed that the second confession should be disregarded if the jury found that it was the fruit of a prior unlawful confession.
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.