PEOPLE v. BERKEL (2012)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered December 17, 2009, convicting her of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (McKay, J.), of that branch of her omnibus motion which was to suppress statements she made to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court correctly concluded that she was not in custody when she made certain statements to detectives (see People v. Centano, 76 N.Y.2d 837, 838; People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, cert denied 400 U.S. 851) and, therefore, that the administration of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444–445) was not required during the interview.

The defendant's challenge to the trial court's ruling that she could be cross-examined regarding her knowledge of certain prior conduct of her son is without merit. The evidence the People sought to elicit was relevant (see People v. Arafet, 13 NY3d 460, 465), and any prejudicial effect it may have had did not outweigh its probative value.

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