Opinion
November 23, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing amply supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant's statements to law enforcement officials were admissible. The defendant had accompanied a two-year-old child to the hospital where the child died that same afternoon. After being advised by a doctor that the child had some lacerations and possibly died of internal bleeding, a police detective questioned the defendant at the hospital. Such on-the-scene noncustodial questioning of a witness is investigative in nature and does not require that the Miranda warnings be given (see, e.g., People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, cert denied 400 U.S. 851; People v. Dorsey, 118 A.D.2d 653, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1052).
Later that same day, the defendant voluntarily accompanied the police to the precinct for further questioning along with the child's mother and other witnesses. The defendant was not restrained in any way and was permitted to leave the precinct afterwards. Since the defendant was not in custody, no Miranda warnings were required (see, e.g., People v. Anderson, 127 A.D.2d 774, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 947; People v. Oates, 104 A.D.2d 907).
Finally, the evidence supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant was not in custody when he was questioned by a detective two days later in his hotel room. Again, the defendant was not restrained in any way, and the detective left the premises after their short conversation. Under the circumstances, a reasonable man, innocent of any wrongdoing, would not have considered himself to be in custody (see, People v. Yukl, supra). When the defendant was taken into custody three days after the child's death, he was properly advised of his Miranda rights prior to questioning by law enforcement officials.
The defendant's contention that his statements, as well as physical items seized from the premises, should have been suppressed due to his warrantless arrest is unpreserved for review since this issue was not raised before the suppression court (see, e.g., People v. Smith, 55 N.Y.2d 888; People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029).
The evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the People, was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The contentions raised in the defendant's pro se brief are either unpreserved for review or are without merit. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.