Opinion
March 18, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.).
The evidence supports the hearing court's determination that defendant's statements made prior to Miranda warnings were not the product of custodial interrogation, since a reasonable innocent person in defendant's position would not have thought that he was in custody ( People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, cert denied 400 U.S. 851; see also, Matter of Kwok T., 43 N.Y.2d 213, 219-220). We conclude that it would have been unreasonable for defendant to assume that his admission to helping another person move the murder victim's body a slight distance rendered the interview custodial. Such an assumption would have been inconsistent with the noncoercive circumstances of the interview, including the fact that the police continued to treat defendant as a witness rather than a suspect even after he made this admission. In any event, were we to find these statements to be inadmissible, we would find that defendant's videotaped statement was attenuated as the result of a pronounced break in the interrogation ( see, People v. Dunkley, 200 A.D.2d 499, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 871).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.