Opinion
October 24, 1967
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County, convicting appellant of the crime of burglary in the first degree, one count; and rape in the first degree, two counts. We find no basis to disturb the trial court's determination that beyond a reasonable doubt appellant was properly advised of his constitutional rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436, 479), and that he waived the same. We find no error in the trial court's failure to exclude the press from the Huntley hearing. Appellant did not request a closed hearing, just that the press be excluded. Appellant's present objection predicated on the publication of the court's ruling in the Huntley hearing is not timely made. If he felt that publication of the trial court's determination was prejudicial he clearly did not on the record make that fact known to the trial court or move for a change of venue ( Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181; People v. Fein, 18 N.Y.2d 162; cf., People v. Pratt, 27 A.D.2d 199). Moreover, there is no indication that this present contention was raised on the voir dire and apparently appellant did not exhaust his peremptory challenges. Nor can we find any merit in any of the additional arguments for reversal advanced by appellant and, accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.