Opinion
April 14, 1989
Appeal from the Oneida County Court, McLaughlin, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: An investigating officer testified during direct examination that, prior to any Miranda warnings, when defendant was asked if he knew why he was in custody, defendant stated that it was "about Missy", the victim. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, claiming that he had not been provided with notice of that statement (see, CPL 710.30). The court refused to grant a mistrial and instead, granted an alternative request to strike the testimony. The court also promptly issued an effective curative instruction. On appeal, defendant contends that the court's refusal to grant the mistrial constituted an abuse of discretion, and that subsequent oral and written confessions should have been suppressed because they were tainted by the prior unwarned statement.
The initial oral statement was of minor importance when compared with the subsequent detailed confessions that were admitted into evidence, and we conclude that the court's prompt and strong curative instruction was adequate to alleviate any prejudice caused by the officer's testimony (see, People v Watson, 121 A.D.2d 487, 488, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 818; People v Celeste, 95 A.D.2d 961). There is no proof that defendant's state of mind was such that his single unwarned statement committed him to the subsequent confession (see, People v. Tanner, 30 N.Y.2d 102; People v. Holmes, 145 A.D.2d 908). From our review of the evidence presented at the Huntley hearing and at trial, we perceive no reason to disturb the fact finder's determinations that the oral and written confessions were given voluntarily.
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.