Opinion
January 29, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.).
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Miranda warnings were unnecessary because defendant was not in custody when the detective asked him two questions of an investigatory nature. Under the totality of the circumstances herein, a reasonable innocent person would not have believed himself to be in custody ( see, People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, cert denied 400 U.S. 851; see also, Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence of defendant's knowledge that the property was stolen, including his contradictory and patently false explanations of his acquisition of the property.
Defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.