| People v Hill |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06292 [110 AD3d 410] |
| October 1, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William Hill, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Martin J. Foncello of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J., at suppressionhearing; Bruce Allen, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered March 1, 2010, convictingdefendant of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, and sentencinghim, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 25 years to life,unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The hearing evidenceestablishes that defendant's confessions were voluntary (see Arizona vFulminante, 499 US 279, 285-288 [1991]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35,38-39 [1977]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations,which are supported by the record. The fact that the court may have labeled bothprosecution and defense witnesses as generally "credible," even though they gavetestimony that conflicted on material issues, did not render the court's findingscontradictory or unworthy of deference. In making its findings, the court was entitled toselectively accept or reject portions of each witness's testimony. In particular, the courtfound that defendant never invoked his right to counsel, either personally or through hisbrother, and that the police did not make any improper use of defendant's brother as anagent to induce defendant to make a statement.
The court properly admitted a surveillance videotape that was adequatelyauthenticated by the testimony of a detective who, while working a second job for asecurity company, hooked up the surveillance cameras to the video recorder and checkedon a daily basis that the system was functioning properly (see People v Patterson,93 NY2d 80, 84-85 [1999]). The detective's testimony, when viewed in the light ofcommon sense, supports the conclusion that the videotape accurately and completelydepicted the events at issue. The detective testified to the unaltered condition of the tape,and any gaps in the chain of custody went to the weight to be accorded the evidence, notits admissibility (see People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 494[*2][2008];People v McGee, 49 NY2d 48, 59-60 [1979], cert denied sub nom.Waters v New York, 446 US 942 [1980]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Friedman, J.P.,Moskowitz, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.