Opinion
January 9, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the hearing court's denial of his motion for suppression of the wholly exculpatory statement made by him to law enforcement officials upon his arrest is based on the contention that his right to remain silent was not "`scrupulously honored'" (People v Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, 322, cert denied 472 U.S. 1007). Having failed to specify this basis for suppression in his initial motion to suppress or during the suppression hearing and having further failed to register any objection to the admission of the statement at trial, the defendant has not preserved this claim for review (see, People v Mandrachio, 55 N.Y.2d 906, cert denied 457 U.S. 1122; People v Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 887; People v Gagne, 129 A.D.2d 808; People v Aniades, 121 A.D.2d 642). Assuming, arguendo, that suppression was warranted, given the nature and quantum of the proof offered at trial, including the testimony of two acquaintances placing the defendant in the vicinity of the scene of the crime and observing him running, after hearing the firing of a shot, carrying a radio which was taken from the deceased, and the defendant's admission to his cousin and her roommate soon after the crime of having shot someone for a radio, the admission of the exculpatory statement upon the People's direct case was clearly harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237).
The alleged inadequacy of the trial court's charge as to identification is similarly unpreserved, as defense counsel neither requested the instruction now claimed to have been erroneously omitted nor excepted to the charge as issued (see, CPL 470.05; People v Bronson, 127 A.D.2d 776). In any event, since the question of the defendant's guilt turned largely on the credibility of the People's witnesses who knew the defendant, and not upon the nature and quality of their observations of the defendant during the commission of the crime, a " Daniels-type" charge (People v Daniels, 88 A.D.2d 392) was unwarranted (see, People v Blake, 124 A.D.2d 666).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, a criminal defendant may be convicted of both felony murder and intentional murder for killing a single person (People v Jackson, 20 N.Y.2d 440, 451, cert denied 391 U.S. 928; People v Leonti, 18 N.Y.2d 384, 391-392).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.