PEOPLE v. FLIPPEN (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered January 8, 2020, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.  The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Joanne D. Quinones, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied, after a hearing, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials at the precinct station house.  Although the statements were made after the defendant's indelible right to counsel had attached and outside of the presence of his counsel, the statements were voluntary, spontaneous, and not the result of any police conduct or questioning which reasonably could have been expected to elicit an inculpatory response from the defendant (see People v. Caro, 177 A.D.3d 995, 111 N.Y.S.3d 191;  People v. Velez–Garriga, 159 A.D.3d 928, 70 N.Y.S.3d 77;  People v. Adams, 157 A.D.3d 897, 898, 66 N.Y.S.3d 912;  People v. Matos, 133 A.D.3d 885, 889, 21 N.Y.S.3d 267).

The defendant's contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during his opening statement and summation, and questions posed by the prosecutor during cross-examination, deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant either failed to object or made only general objections and failed to request curative instructions, and the comments now complained of were not the basis for the defendant's motion for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Broderick, 199 A.D.3d 696, 153 N.Y.S.3d 899).  In any event, the challenged comments and questions either were fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564) or, to the extent they were improper, were not so pervasive or egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Bensabeur, 225 A.D.3d 891, 207 N.Y.S.3d 666).

The defendant's challenge to the verdict sheet is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Anderson, 76 A.D.3d 980, 982, 908 N.Y.S.2d 409) and, in any event, without merit.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHAMBERS, LANDICINO and GOLIA, JJ., concur.