The court properly admitted a prosecution witness's Grand Jury testimony after a thorough hearing at which the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that defendant's misconduct caused the witness's disappearance (see, People v. Cotto, 92 N.Y.2d 68, 75-77; People v. Geraci, 85 N.Y.2d 359). There is no basis upon which to disturb the court's determinations concerning credibility. In addition to extensive evidence concerning the missing witness himself, the court properly considered evidence of defendant's unsuccessful attempts to tamper with other witnesses since this evidence established a common scheme or plan to tamper with as many witnesses as possible (see, People v. Duffy, 212 N.Y. 57, 64-71). The record fails to support defendant's claim that the court relied on evidence established at a proceeding concerning a witness's initial refusal to testify, from which defendant and his counsel had been excluded.
By proceeding with a suppression hearing after his motion to preclude a statement for the lack of timely CPL 710.30(1)(a) notice was denied, defendant waived the preclusion issue (People v. Kirkland, 89 N.Y.2d 903). In any event, the People established good cause for the delay.
Defendant's motion to suppress his statement made in Jamaica to Jamaican officials was properly denied. There was no evidence that the Jamaican authorities acted as agents of New York police or that there was any other basis for suppression (see, United States v. Maturo, 982 F.2d 57, 61, cert denied 508 U.S. 980). We note, in any event, that the warnings administered to defendant in Jamaica were largely similar to Miranda warnings.
The trial court's justification instruction, when read as a whole, adequately conveyed the correct legal standards to the jury and could not have caused any prejudice.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.