Opinion
June 8, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that his arrest was not supported by probable cause. The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing amply supports the finding that the police possessed probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a crime (see, People v Miner, 42 N.Y.2d 937; People v Rivera, 67 A.D.2d 867). Moreover, there is no basis for disturbing the suppression court's finding that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see, People v Boyce, 89 A.D.2d 623, 624). Great weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court, with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759). The defendant's contention that search warrants obtained after his arrest were improperly issued or returned is without merit.
Contrary to the defendant's contention that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we find the proof of the defendant's guilt, which included the defendant's full confession, testimony by numerous witnesses that a week prior to the shooting of the victim the defendant had been in an altercation at the victim's home and had threatened to kill her and her daughter, and expert testimony that the shotgun shell found at the scene of the crime had been fired from a shotgun seized from the defendant, to have been overwhelming.
Numerous color photographs of the victim's body and the crime scene were introduced into evidence at the trial. While many of those photographs were highly graphic, it is well settled that "[w]here they are otherwise * * * admitted as having a tendency to prove or disprove some material fact in issue, photographs of a corpse are admissible even though they `portray a gruesome spectacle and may tend to arouse passion and resentment against the defendant in the minds of the jury'" (People v Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 369-370, cert denied 416 U.S. 905, quoting from Annotation, Evidence — Photograph of Corpse, 73 ALR2d 769, 787).
Most of the photographs tended to corroborate other relevant evidence in the case and were properly admitted (see, People v Pobliner, supra; People v Sims, 110 A.D.2d 214, 222, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 657). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, any error in this respect was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241).
We find that the defendant's claim that he wanted to testify at the trial but was prevented by his counsel from doing so, which is premised upon matters dehors the record, is strongly contradicted by comments in the record.
We have considered the defendant's other contentions and find they do not require reversal. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.