| People v Vought |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08485 [45 AD3d 1247] |
| November 9, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Larry A.Vought, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.), rendered April12, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the seconddegree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby isunanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial ofmurder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for ourreview his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction inasmuchas he failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting evidence (seePeople v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]). Wereject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Itcannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (seegenerally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).
County Court properly refused to suppress defendant's responses to two questions asked bythe police before advising defendant of his Miranda rights. The record establishes thatdefendant was stopped for a routine traffic violation and was taken into custody when the policediscovered that he had an invalid registration and a suspended license and was the subject of anoutstanding arrest warrant. During the course of a routine inventory search of defendant's vehiclein preparation for towing, the police observed what appeared to be a human body that waswrapped in a mattress pad and secured with duct tape. Without first advising defendant of hisMiranda rights, the police asked defendant whether there was a person in the mattresspad, and defendant responded in the affirmative. Defendant then gave a negative response whenthe police asked whether that person was in need of an ambulance. The court properly refused tosuppress defendant's responses to the questions asked by the police because the questions "weredesigned not to elicit incriminating statements, but rather 'to clarify the nature of the situationconfronted' in the context of an ongoing crime" (People v Porter, 35 AD3d 907, 908 [2006], quoting People vHuffman, 41 NY2d 29, 34 [1976]). Finally, defendant contends that he was denied his rightto due process because the interrogation conducted at the police station was not electronically[*2]recorded. We reject that contention "[b]ecause '[t]here is noFederal or State due process requirement that interrogations and confessions be electronicallyrecorded' " (People v Martin, 294 AD2d 850, 850 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 711[2002]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Green, JJ.