Aрpeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Monserrate, J.),
In 1984 a series of burglaries occurred at churches loсated in the City of Binghamton, Broome County. During investigation of another matter, pоlice found evidence indicating that defendant may have been involved in one of the church burglaries which had occurred on September 11, 1984. The evidence also provided a link between defendant and an unrelated burglary which had occurred at the home of a local clergyman, William Sexton. Defendant voluntarily accompanied police to their office where he was informed of his Miranda rights. He chose to waive his rights and to answer questions without аn attorney present. When confronted with evidence linking him to the burglary of the Sеxton residence, defendant admitted committing the crime. The discussion then turned tо the church burglaries. Defendant offered to make a deal with police when he was confronted with evidence implicating him in one of the church burglaries. The police agreed and defendant admitted involvement in several other church burglaries. The deal struck between the police and defendant provided that defendant would be charged with only one of the six church burglaries which he admitted committing.
Prior to trial, defendant made a motion to supрress his confession; a Huntley hearing was held and, after hearing the evidence, County Court determined that the People established beyond a reasonablе doubt that the confession was voluntarily given. The suppression motion was thus deniеd. A jury trial ensued and defendant was found guilty of the charged crime. He was sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment of SVi to 7 years. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that his confession was obtained through the use of deceptive police tactics and thus was involuntary. Police "stratagems need not result in involuntariness without some showing that the deception was so fundamentally unfаir as to deny due process” (People v Tarsia,
Defendant further argues that his confession as to the church burglaries should have been suppressed because he allegedly did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. Defendant premises this argument on the fact that at the time he was advised оf his rights, and indicated that he would answer questions regarding the Sexton burglary, he was not аware that he might also be questioned about the church burglaries. There is, howеver, no requirement that a suspect be made aware in advance of all possible subjects of questioning (see, Colorado v Spring, 479 US —, —,
Defendant’s remaining contentions, including his assertion that thе prosecution made remarks during summation which deprived him of a fair trial, have been considered and found meritless.
Judgment affirmed. Main, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.