| People v Bernardez |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04605 [73 AD3d 1196] |
| May 25, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JuanR. Bernardez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (William C. Milaccio, RichardLongworth Hecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Neary, J.), rendered November 5, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree (threecounts), kidnapping in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and burglary in the firstdegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial,after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress hisstatements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which wasto suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. The hearing court properly found that thedefendant did not make those statements during a custodial interrogation, and that they were notthe product of an unlawful arrest (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 588-592 [1969],cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Ellerbe, 265 AD2d 569, 570 [1999];People v Delfino, 234 AD2d 382, 383 [1996]). Moreover, the hearing court properlyfound that the defendant made those statements after knowingly, voluntarily and intelligentlywaiving his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]), andthat those statements were not the product of coercion (see People v Miles, 276 AD2d566, 566-567 [2000]).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the trial court improperly permitted anexpert in forensic psychiatry who testified during the People's rebuttal case to refer to thedefendant's criminal history. The probative value of the testimony, which tended to disprove thedefendant's claim concerning his mental state, outweighed its potential for prejudice to thedefendant (see People v Santarelli, 49 NY2d 241, 248-249 [1980]; People vRyklin, 150 AD2d 509, 510-511 [1989]). Furthermore, the trial court gave appropriatelimiting instructions to the jury as to the limited purpose for which the testimony was received(see People v Ryklin, 150 AD2d at 511).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit. Covello, J.P., Dickerson, Eng andAustin, JJ., concur.