Opinion
June 8, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that his statements to the police should have been suppressed on the ground that he was not advised of his Miranda rights prior to custodial interrogation. We disagree.
The arresting officer's pre- Miranda inquiry regarding the contents of the defendant's clenched fist was justified in order to protect the officer's welfare (see, People v. Chestnut, 51 N.Y.2d 14, 23, cert denied 449 U.S. 1018). Moreover, given the defendant's wholly voluntary and spontaneous explanation that he had recovered the stolen necklace from an unapprehended perpetrator, the police officer properly requested a description of the purported robber. The defendant's explanation and the substance of the police query indicate that the officer's request was clearly designed to clarify the situation with which he was confronted, rather than elicit inculpatory statements from the defendant (see, People v. Clark, 172 A.D.2d 679, 681; People v Luna, 164 A.D.2d 870, 871). Indeed, it is well settled that one or two questions of a suspect by police at a crime scene, in order to ascertain transpiring events, does not constitute a custodial interrogation to which Miranda is applicable (see, People v Smith, 150 A.D.2d 738, 739).
The defendant's further contention that his right to a fair trial was vitiated by a prosecutorial summation, which was allegedly pervaded with misconduct, is without merit. The prosecutor's comments were a direct and fair response to the summation of the defense counsel which manifestly impugned the credibility and veracity of the People's witnesses (see, People v. Morgan, 136 A.D.2d 749; People v. Colon, 122 A.D.2d 151).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.