PEOPLE v. RIDGEWAY (2009)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to the police because they were obtained in violation of his right to counsel.   We reject that contention (see generally People v. Cohen, 90 N.Y.2d 632, 638-639, 665 N.Y.S.2d 30, 687 N.E.2d 1313;  People v. Campbell, 275 A.D.2d 984, 713 N.Y.S.2d 432, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 732, 722 N.Y.S.2d 799, 745 N.E.2d 1022).   The court also properly refused to allow defendant to present evidence at trial to enable the jury to determine whether his right to counsel had attached when he made those statements (see People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 171-173, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 397 N.E.2d 709).   The determination of that issue “require[s] a knowledge of the criminal justice system which not only lay people, but even lawyers who are not active in such practice, do not possess” (People v. Medina, 146 A.D.2d 344, 350, 541 N.Y.S.2d 355, affd. 76 N.Y.2d 331, 559 N.Y.S.2d 474, 558 N.E.2d 1011, rearg. denied 76 N.Y.2d 890, 561 N.Y.S.2d 551, 562 N.E.2d 876;  see also People v. Bynum, 275 A.D.2d 251, 252, 712 N.Y.S.2d 523, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 961, 722 N.Y.S.2d 478, 745 N.E.2d 399;  People v. Calloway, 171 A.D.2d 1037, 1038, 569 N.Y.S.2d 233, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 992, 571 N.Y.S.2d 918, 575 N.E.2d 404).

 Defendant further contends that the court erred in admitting in evidence the grand jury testimony of the murder victim concerning earlier domestic incidents in which defendant harmed or antagonized her.   Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting that grand jury testimony (cf. People v. Maher, 89 N.Y.2d 456, 461-462, 654 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 677 N.E.2d 728;  People v. Flowers, 245 A.D.2d 1088, 667 N.Y.S.2d 546, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 972, 672 N.Y.S.2d 851, 695 N.E.2d 720), we conclude that any error in its admission is harmless (see generally People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in granting the People's motion to consolidate the indictments for trial purposes (see People v. McQueen, 266 A.D.2d 240, 699 N.Y.S.2d 419, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 826, 702 N.Y.S.2d 596, 724 N.E.2d 388;  People v. Nance, 175 A.D.2d 662, 572 N.Y.S.2d 589, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 830, 580 N.Y.S.2d 210, 588 N.E.2d 108), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).   Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

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

MEMORANDUM: