Opinion
March 19, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant, without an appointment, voluntarily and entirely on her own initiative came to the District Attorney's office to discuss her Grand Jury testimony with the Assistant District Attorney who had questioned her before the Grand Jury. Following this conversation, the defendant left the District Attorney's office. Since a reasonable person in the defendant's position, innocent of any crime, would have assumed that she was free to leave the ensuing interview with the Assistant District Attorney, a statement that the defendant made at the interview was not the product of a custodial interrogation and hence was properly ruled admissible by the hearing court (see, People v Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, cert denied 400 U.S. 851; People v Arcese, 148 A.D.2d 460). The fact that the defendant was given her Miranda warnings prior to the interview does not preclude a finding that a reasonable person in her position would have thought she was free to leave (see, People v Oates, 104 A.D.2d 907; People v Torres, 97 A.D.2d 802).
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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.