Opinion
February 4, 1994
Appeal from the Oneida County Court, Merrell, J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's confession was properly admitted into evidence. Statements made by the investigating officers that they would try to get psychological help for defendant did not render his subsequent confession involuntary (see, People v. Baird, 167 A.D.2d 693, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 903; People v. Fox, 120 A.D.2d 949, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 812; People v. Taber, 115 A.D.2d 126, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 657). The prosecutor did not violate County Court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) by asking defendant on cross-examination whether he told police officers that he had received psychological treatment in Florida. County Court's Sandoval ruling was that the prosecutor could not cross-examine defendant concerning his Florida conviction and it did not extend to prohibiting the prosecutor from eliciting evidence concerning counseling that defendant had received. The evidence was elicited, not on the issue of propensity (cf., People v. Simms, 174 A.D.2d 979, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 974), but on the issue of the voluntariness of defendant's confession. Moreover, were we to find that the evidence was erroneously admitted, we would find the error harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). We decline to modify defendant's sentence in the interest of justice.