Majority
—Appeal by the de
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant uttered incriminating statements after a detective told one of the defendant’s relatives that the defendant was being arrested for “gunpoint robbery”. It is apparent that the detective’s statement could not reasonably be construed as one likely to elicit an incriminating response (see, Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 US 291 ; People v Huffman, 61 NY2d 795 , 797). Thus, we conclude that the record supports the hearing court’s determination that the statement was spontaneously uttered and voluntary (see, People v Zanders, 241 AD2d 531 ; People v McAdoo, 166 AD2d 674 , 675).
The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Rhode Island v. Innis 446 US 291 p. 602
- People v. Huffman 61 NY2d 795 at 797 p. 602
- People v. McAdoo 166 AD2d 674 at 675 p. 602
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 602