Opinion
1999-02521
Submitted January 22, 2002.
February 19, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered February 4, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Martin, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
Sally Wasserman, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anne C. Feigus of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, SONDRA MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the hearing court that the defendant's arrest was supported by probable cause (see, People v. O'Neal, 248 A.D.2d 561; People v. Sledge, 225 A.D.2d 711). As to the defendant's statements, he correctly contends that his first statement made in response to custodial interrogation prior to the administration of Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) should have been suppressed (see, People v. Soto, 183 A.D.2d 926). However, the error in admitting the statement, which was essentially exculpatory, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). The hearing court properly concluded that the defendant's second statement was admissible since it was a spontaneous statement and not the product of police interrogation (see, People v. Overby, 251 A.D.2d 163, 164).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, 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 (see, People v. Bumbury, 194 A.D.2d 735; People v. Gillespie, 168 A.D.2d 567). 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 (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contention that he is entitled to a new suppression hearing because of a Rosario violation (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866) is also unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, a new hearing is not warranted because the defendant has failed to demonstrate prejudice (see, CPL 240.75; People v. Sorbello, 285 A.D.2d 88, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 658).
The defendant's challenges to the remarks made in the prosecutor's summation are partly unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the remarks were either responsive to the defendant's summation (see, People v. Turner, 214 A.D.2d 594), ameliorated by the court's instructions, or harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, supra; People v. Small, 286 A.D.2d 513).
ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, S. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.