Opinion
August 16, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant's contention, this is not a case in which the People rely solely upon circumstantial evidence, since the defendant's admissions constitute direct evidence (see, People v Daddona, 81 N.Y.2d 990; People v Licitra, 47 N.Y.2d 554; People v Rumble, 45 N.Y.2d 879). Therefore, the "moral certainty" standard by which purely circumstantial cases are tested is inapplicable here (see, People v Licitra, supra; People v Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
In his omnibus motion, the defendant sought to suppress his statements as involuntarily made and requested a hearing to determine whether his arrest was supported by probable cause. The court granted a hearing on voluntariness but denied that branch of the motion which was to suppress the defendant's statements as the fruit of an allegedly illegal arrest without prejudice to renew. However, the defendant failed to renew that branch of the motion after the facts underlying his arrest became known to him at the Huntley hearing. We therefore reject his present claim that the court should have suppressed all of his statements on the ground of lack of probable cause.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Eiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.