Opinion
July 5, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Great weight must be accorded the determination of the hearing court, with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), and its determination should not be disturbed if it is supported by the record (see, People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561). We find that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's arrest demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's confession was voluntarily made (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35; People v. Yarter, 41 N.Y.2d 830; People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72). Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the record fails to demonstrate any evidence that the defendant was particularly young or immature, that he was in poor physical or mental condition, that he was interrogated at length or very intensely, that he was threatened or that the detectives made false statements to him calculated to overbear his will and to impair his capacity for self-determination (see, People v. Leonard, 59 A.D.2d 1).
We also find that the photographic identification procedure was not so unduly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification (see, Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98; Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377). In any event, the witness had a sufficient independent basis for an in-court identification of the defendant (see, People v. Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173).
The defendant's claim that the hearing court improperly denied his application for disclosure of the police informant's identity is without merit (see, People v. White, 16 N.Y.2d 270, cert denied 386 U.S. 1008; People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86; People v. Johnson, 129 A.D.2d 815, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 713). The testimony by the police officers was more than sufficient to establish probable cause for the defendant's arrest while the informant had merely provided a tip as to the defendant's name.
The defendant's claim with respect to the denial of a missing witness charge as to the informant is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951). In any event, the informant's tip was not relevant to the issue of guilt and disclosure of the informant's identity at trial was not required since the trial testimony of the police officers clearly established the defendant's identity (see, People v. Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, cert denied 419 U.S. 1012). Further, since the trial court refused to allow questioning concerning the photographic identification procedure, the existence of an informant was never made known to the jury. Under such circumstances, a missing witness charge would have merely created confusion on the part of the jury.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.