| People v Jefferson |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01815 [71 AD3d 694] |
| March 2, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lloyd Jefferson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Anne E. Oh of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (J. Doyle, J.),rendered August 24, 2006, convicting him of arson in the fifth degree, after a nonjury trial, andimposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Gazzillo, J.), ofthat branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that a certain remark made to him by a detective prior to theadministration of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436[1966]) constituted the functional equivalent of interrogation, thereby warranting suppression ofhis post-Miranda statement to the police. However, since the defendant failed to raisethis specific argument at the Huntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72[1965]), it is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Nadal, 57 AD3d 574, 575 [2008]; People v Thompson, 27 AD3d495, 496 [2006]). In any event, the detective's remark was not the functional equivalent ofinterrogation, since it was not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response (seeRhode Island v Innis, 446 US 291, 301 [1980]; People v Huffman, 61 NY2d 795,797 [1984]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconviction of arson in the fifth degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorableto the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, uponour independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt wasnot against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng and Roman,JJ., concur.