Opinion
April 17, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court did not err in denying the suppression of the inculpatory statement made by him to the police, in which he admitted his role in the shooting death of the decedent. The evidence adduced at the Huntley hearing clearly established that the defendant voluntarily surrendered to the police. Prior to his arrest he was apprised of his constitutional rights which he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived (see, People v. Hamilton, 138 A.D.2d 625, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 860). Thereafter he admitted to the shooting, claiming that he shot in self-defense. Thus the court correctly ruled his statement admissible. We further note, however, that even if we were to find that suppression was required, the People did not offer the statement in question into evidence at trial so that any claimed illegality is without merit (see, People v Colloca, 57 A.D.2d 1039).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620) we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. The prosecution called, inter alia, 2 eyewitnesses to the shooting, 1 of whom testified that he heard the defendant announce his intention to kill the victim immediately prior to his firing the first of two shots at a distance of approximately 6 to 10 feet. The minor testimonial inconsistencies complained of do not render the testimony of the prosecution witnesses incredible as a matter of law (People v. Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 1133).
Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (CPL 470.15), we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury could reasonably and rationally conclude from the evidence adduced at trial (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490) that the defendant had intentionally shot and killed his victim (see, People v. Underwood, 126 A.D.2d 584; see also, People v. Ciola, 136 A.D.2d 557, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 893). The evidence also disproved the defendant's proffered defense of justification (Penal Law § 35.15) beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Collice, 41 N.Y.2d 906). The verdict rested largely upon the jury's assessment of the credibility of the respective witnesses and its determination should be given great weight on appeal. As the verdict is clearly supported by the record it should not be disturbed (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rubin, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.