| People v DeJesus |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08318 [45 AD3d 986] |
| November 8, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Hector L. DeJesus, Appellant. |
—[*1] Beth G. Cozzolino, District Attorney, Hudson (H. Neal Conolly of counsel), forrespondent.
Crew III, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.),rendered August 31, 2005, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of murder in thesecond degree and burglary in the second degree.
In the early morning hours of November 1, 2004, defendant and four others went to the homeof Henry Gropp for the purpose of stealing money. Upon entering the home, the group wereconfronted by Gropp and, during the encounter, Gropp was fatally stabbed. Consequently,defendant was indicted and charged with felony murder and burglary in the second degree. Uponhis unsuccessful attempt to have his confession suppressed, defendant was convicted on bothcounts of the indictment and sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 25 years to life on thefelony murder conviction and 15 years on the burglary conviction. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant initially contends that County Court improperly denied his motion to suppressinasmuch as the police used deceptive measures to get him to go to police headquarters, [*2]denied him access to his brother and did not permit him to call hisfather. We disagree. While defendant's consent to accompany the police to the station wasobtained by ruse, there is nothing in the record revealing that defendant's assent was anythingother than voluntary and nothing suggests that defendant's ultimate statement was the result ofsuch ruse, thus rendering his statement admissible (see People v MacGilfrey, 288 AD2d554, 556 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 757 [2002]).
The record further reflects that defendant's brother came to the station and asked aboutdefendant but apparently was not permitted to see him. Defendant claims that this was a basis forsuppression of his statement. Again, we disagree. It is now well established that the police are notrequired to provide a defendant access to a family member who is present at police headquartersduring interrogation (see People vCole, 24 AD3d 1021, 1023 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 832 [2006]).
Finally, defendant claims that County Court erred in failing to suppress his inculpatorystatement by reason of the police failing to permit him to call his father. Initially, we note that therecord does not support defendant's contention that the police denied him the opportunity totelephone his father. But, even if they did, we note that defendant was legally an adult and thepolice had no obligation to permit him to make such a call during the interrogation (seePeople v Henson, 263 AD2d 550, 551 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1044 [1999];People v Shepard, 259 AD2d 775, 776 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 979 [1999]).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments, including those contained in his prose brief, and find them equally without merit excepting defendant's contention that County Courterred in admitting a hockey mask into evidence. While that evidence was inadmissible, we findsuch error to be harmless in light of the otherwise overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.