PEOPLE v. DAVIS (1999)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered November 19, 1996, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, attempted manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.   The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's claims that his statements to law enforcement authorities were obtained under duress, that his Miranda rights were improperly administered, and that the interviewing police officer improperly amended his written statement were not supported by any factual evidence.   His claims were contradicted by the testimony of the police officer, which created a question of credibility for the hearing court, whose findings are supported by the record (see, People v. Stevens, 223 A.D.2d 609, 636 N.Y.S.2d 828).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5] ).

 Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of one of the People's witnesses regarding the victim's alleged racial bigotry.   It is well settled that the scope of cross-examination rests largely in the sound discretion of the court, which here correctly found that the claims regarding the victim's alleged racial bigotry did not in any way mitigate the defendant's conduct (see, Matter of Devanand S., 188 A.D.2d 533, 591 N.Y.S.2d 440).

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

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.