Opinion
November 25, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Belfi, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his written confession and the results of chemical analyses of his blood and urine should have been suppressed on the ground that the confession and subsequent consent to the taking of samples for chemical analysis were not voluntary. He asserts that when he spoke to the police, he was in the hospital, suffering from head injuries and in substantial pain from a catheter that had been inserted into his penis.
In reviewing suppression issues, we accord great weight to the determination of the hearing court with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761). That determination should not be disturbed when, as here, it is supported by the record (see, People v Norris, 122 A.D.2d 82, 83).
The hospital records, which were admitted into evidence at the hearing without objection, indicate that the defendant was brought to the emergency room with multiple superficial lacerations and contusions and a possible cerebral concussion. The records reveal that when defendant was brought into the emergency room he was noted to be "evasive but alert and apparently oriented". Hospital personnel observed him for any signs of a head injury, but none developed.
Both Detectives Cocks and Dempsey testified at the suppression hearing that, initially, the defendant refused to speak to them until his catheter was removed. However, after his catheter was removed and he was advised of his rights, he did not ask for a lawyer or tell the detectives that he did not wish to speak to them. In addition, both detectives testified that the defendant appeared lucid and responsive to their questions. Moreover, although Detective Cocks testified that the defendant appeared to be in some pain when the police were speaking to him, the detective further testified that after the catheter was removed the defendant indicated that much of his pain had subsided, and he seemed much more at ease.
As to proof of guilt, the defendant contends that his conduct, although reckless, did not rise to a level evincing a depraved indifference to human life.
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for depraved indifference murder. After a night of heavy drug use, the defendant led the police on a high-speed chase for 11 miles through Nassau County. At times, he drove at twice the legal speed limit, through residential areas, disregarding stop signs and red lights, and crossing the double yellow lines into oncoming traffic. In his statement to the police, the defendant admitted travelling at 60 to 65 miles per hour as he approached the intersection of Grove and South Franklin Streets. He also admitted that the traffic light there was against him. Although the defendant claimed to have tried to slow down, a witness testified that the defendant did not slow down. He then hit another car, killing its driver. In all, this conduct satisfies the depraved indifference element of murder in the second degree (see, People v. Gomez, 65 N.Y.2d 9, 12).
The defendant's sentence was, in all respects, proper (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find that it is without merit. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.