People v. Ingram

Oct 3, 1994
Reporters:
, ,

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.), rendered April 14, 1989, convicting him of ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‍burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Lakritz, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‍authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends, inter alia, that his confession should be suppressed because it was obtained as a result of police deception and trickery. We disagree. Although the police falsely informed the defendant, before obtaining his confession, that the co-perpetrator ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‍had implicated the defendant in the subject crime, this ruse was not so fundamentally unfair as to deny the defendant due process of law (see, People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 11; People v Foster, 193 AD2d 692, 693; People v Jackson, 140 AD2d 458). Moreover, we do ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‍not perceive the conduct of the law enforcement officials to have been so egregious as to render the confession involuntary (see, People v Foster, supra; People v Hassell, 180 AD2d 819, 820).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‍v Sobotker, 43 NY2d 559, 563; People v Foster, supra; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.