PEOPLE v. MARTIN (2007)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [4] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the written statement that he gave to the police because he asked to speak to his grandmother.   We reject that contention.   The record establishes that defendant was 17 years old when he gave the written statement to the police.   He thus was “legally an adult ․ and there was no requirement that his family be present during police questioning” (People v. Page, 225 A.D.2d 831, 833, 638 N.Y.S.2d 985, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 883, 645 N.Y.S.2d 457, 668 N.E.2d 428;  see People v. Lewis, 277 A.D.2d 1010, 1011, 716 N.Y.S.2d 204, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 736, 722 N.Y.S.2d 803, 745 N.E.2d 1026).   The mere fact that the police denied defendant access to his family during questioning does not require suppression.   Rather, a “showing that the isolation resulted from official deception or trickery is required before suppression becomes available under [the] theory” that defendant was unlawfully denied access to his family (People v. Salaam, 83 N.Y.2d 51, 55, 607 N.Y.S.2d 899, 629 N.E.2d 371), and no such showing was made here.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: