Opinion
February 5, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that her statement to the police at the station house should have been suppressed because it was the product of a custodial interrogation and because she was not informed of her Miranda rights prior to making it. We disagree.
The standard for analyzing whether a pre- Miranda statement was the product of a custodial interrogation is whether "a reasonable person in the defendant's position, innocent of any crime, would have believed he was free to leave the presence of the police" (People v. Bailey, 140 A.D.2d 356, 358; see, People v Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, cert denied 400 U.S. 851; People v. Centano, 76 N.Y.2d 837; People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234). The voluntariness of a confession is to be determined by examining the totality of the circumstances surrounding it (see, People v. Sohn, 148 A.D.2d 553, 556; People v. Woods, 141 A.D.2d 588). The factors to be considered include the amount of time the defendant spent with the police; how her freedom was restricted, if at all; the location and atmosphere of the questioning; the degree of cooperation that the defendant exhibited; whether she was apprised of her constitutional rights; and whether the questioning was investigatory or accusatory in nature (see, People v. Tankleff, 199 A.D.2d 550, affd 84 N.Y.2d 992; People v Bailey, supra, at 358). The record in this case reveals that the defendant was not in custody when she made her inculpatory statement.
It is well settled that the use of deception and trickery by the police "need not result in involuntariness without some showing that the deception was so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process" (People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11; People v Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819, 820; People v. Jackson, 140 A.D.2d 458; People v. Burnett, 99 A.D.2d 786). Even though there was some measure of guile employed by the police in this case, the ruse did not render the defendant's statement involuntary (see, People v. Tarsia, supra, at 11; People v. Hassell, supra; People v. Madison, 135 A.D.2d 655, affd 73 N.Y.2d 810).
The defendant's sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.