Opinion
June 16, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.).
Suppression of statements made by defendant while in a holding cell was properly denied since the statements were not made in response to any form of police interrogation. The challenged conversations between the officers had the legitimate purpose of trying to determine what charges, if any, to lodge against defendant, and were not in any way directed toward defendant. Under the circumstances, the officers "had no reason to expect that their conduct was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response" ( People v. Barbarisi, 243 A.D.2d 259, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 868; compare, People v. Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, 319, cert denied 472 U.S. 1007).
Moreover, since defendant's first statements, made on the evening of the arrest, were not the product of interrogation, defendant's more detailed statements to an Assistant District Attorney 14 hours later, and after Miranda warnings, were also admissible.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.