| People v Bailey |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03089 [50 AD3d 343] |
| April 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v EricBailey, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Olivia Sohmer of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered March24, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a forged instrument inthe first degree and two counts of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencinghim to an aggregate term of 1½ to 4½ years, unanimously affirmed.
We reject defendant's challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting the"intent to defraud, deceive or injure another" element (Penal Law § 170.30) of his forgedinstrument conviction (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The totality of the evidence, includingdefendant's statement to the police evincing a consciousness of guilt, and the lack of any reasonfor defendant to be carrying counterfeit bills in a shopping district other than to pass them,supported the inference that he possessed the bills with the requisite intent (see People v Dallas, 46 AD3d 489,491 [2007]).
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the statement he volunteered to thepolice prior to receiving Miranda warnings. During routine arrest processing andvouchering of property, two officers conversed with each other, within earshot of defendant,about the fact that the bills recovered from his pocket were counterfeit. This did not constitutethe functional equivalent of interrogation, and defendant's spontaneous response was thereforenot subject to suppression (People v Atkins, 273 AD2d 12, 13 [2000], lv denied95 NY2d 960 [2000]).
The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a properexercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People vWalker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). Defendant's prior convictions were highly probativeof his credibility, and the court minimized their prejudicial effect by precluding elicitation oftheir underlying facts.
Defendant's challenge to the jury charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in theinterest of justice. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.