PEOPLE v. DAVIS (2000)

 Defendant contends that his oral statements, made while he was in custody and before he received Miranda warnings, were in response to police interrogation and were not spontaneous.  “The question * * * is whether the police conduct should reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a statement from the defendant * * * and whether it can be said under the circumstances that the inculpatory statement was ‘made without apparent external cause’ ” (People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 480, 453 N.Y.S.2d 156, 438 N.E.2d 862, rearg. denied 57 N.Y.2d 775, 454 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 440 N.E.2d 1343;  see, Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297;  People v. Downey, 254 A.D.2d 794, 679 N.Y.S.2d 762, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 1031, 684 N.Y.S.2d 496, 707 N.E.2d 451).   There is no basis in this record to disturb the suppression court's determination that the oral statements made by defendant were spontaneous (see, People v. Harrison, 188 A.D.2d 374, 374-375, 591 N.Y.S.2d 375, affd. 82 N.Y.2d 693, 601 N.Y.S.2d 573, 619 N.E.2d 651).   Defendant asked the police officer what would happen to the money that the police found.   The statements or inquiries made by the police officer in response to defendant's inquiry were “not such that the police officer should have reasonably anticipated that [they] would evoke the defendant's self-incriminating response” (People v. Webb, 224 A.D.2d 464, 465, 637 N.Y.S.2d 773, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 943, 647 N.Y.S.2d 177, 670 N.E.2d 461;  see, People v. Chambers, 184 A.D.2d 716, 717, 585 N.Y.S.2d 84).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: