People v. Richardson

The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. Although defendant was in custody and had not yet received Miranda warnings, his inquiry about why he was being charged with a felony was "immediately met by a brief and relatively innocuous answer by the police officer," not constituting interrogation or its functional equivalent (People v Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 480 [1982]; compare People v Lanahan, 55 N.Y.2d 711 [1981] [detailed recital of evidence held equivalent to interrogation]). Under these circumstances, defendant's inculpatory statement was self-generated and spontaneous.