PEOPLE v. WALKER

The court properly found that, under the "`"totality of the circumstances"'", defendant's statement was voluntary and therefore admissible ( People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 39). Defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights and was willing to answer questions. Defendant was alert and coherent during the interview ( see, People v Del Rosario, 210 AD2d 72, lv denied 84 NY2d 1030), despite the injuries he sustained in a car crash. Furthermore, defendant never asked for medication, a doctor, an interpreter, or for the interview to end. The court properly concluded that defendant's physical injuries did not interfere with his making a voluntary statement.

There is no merit to defendant's contention that the integrity of the Grand Jury proceedings was impaired by the presence of a second Assistant District Attorney who was present for observational purposes ( see, People v Molina, 203 AD2d 486, lv denied 87 NY2d 975).