Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth DepartmentApr 12, 1984
101 A.D.2d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

April 12, 1984

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Barr, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of sodomy in the first degree and attempted robbery in the third degree, entered after a jury trial. The main question presented is whether the People should have been allowed to use a previously suppressed statement, alleged to have been made by him, to impeach his trial testimony (cf. People v Cole, 100 A.D.2d 442). ¶ Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress the statement. The People stated their intention not to use the statement on trial, and the statement was summarily suppressed (CPL 710.60, subd 2, par [b]). The grounds stated in the application for suppression were violation of Miranda requirements ( Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) and deprivation of right to counsel. It is well settled that statements suppressed on these grounds may be used for impeachment purposes ( Oregon v Hass, 420 U.S. 714; Harris v New York, 401 U.S. 222; People v Washington, 51 N.Y.2d 214; People v Caban, 79 A.D.2d 1031). ¶ At trial, defendant testified that he had been beaten by a police officer, but insisted that he had made no statement. The trial issue raised by defendant was, therefore, that any claimed statement was a fabrication of evidence, not that a statement of his was the product of coercion. Thus viewed, the prosecutor could use the statement for impeachment purposes ( People v Washington, 51 N.Y.2d 214). ¶ We have examined defendant's other claims of error and find them to be either without merit or harmless.