45 A.D.2d 1023 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1974
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 11,1972, affirmed. One of the issues raised by defendant on appeal is that he did not waive his right to counsel. In support of this claim, defendant states that he asked the Assistant District Attorney prior to his interrogation: “ You said that if I want an attorney present that’s my right to have an attorney present? ” To this, the Assistant District Attorney clearly did not give a responsive answer. He said in part: “Anything that I may ask you, it is entirely up to you whether or not you decide to answer it.” However, prior to this colloquy, the defendant had been advised of his right to counsel and stated that he understood it. Defendant then parroted two statements made by the Assistant District Attorney. The first related to the use of any statement made by defendant. The second, referred to the matter of counsel to which the nonresponsive answer was given. The warnings were clear and concise. They were knowingly acknowledged and the rights waived by defendant. In context, the nonresponsive answer is not deceptive or coercive. When the defendant was advised of his rights by the Assistant District Attorney, it was for the third time that day. Defendant cites People v. Noble (9 N Y 2d 571) for the proposition that the nonresponsive answer mandates reversal. The