Opinion
January 17, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (O'Shaughnessy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the hearing court's finding that the defendant's statements were spontaneously made and were not the product of police conduct which the police should have known was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response (see, Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 U.S. 291; People v Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286).
The defendant initiated an exchange in the police station with a police officer concerning that officer's observation of the defendant near the scene of a certain burglary. A detective's brief remark, immediately after the defendant's inquiry, with respect to the charges against the defendant and the possibility of an additional charge, does not compel a finding that the defendant's subsequent statement was not spontaneous (see, People v Huffman, 61 N.Y.2d 795; cf., People v Lanahan, 55 N.Y.2d 711). The defendant's final statement in a police car was clearly spontaneous as the officers with him had not asked the defendant any questions nor had they engaged in otherwise improper conduct (see, Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 U.S. 291, supra; People v Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, supra; People v Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, cert denied 472 U.S. 1007). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.