Opinion
November 14, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the confession which he gave to an officer at the scene of the shooting. The defendant argues that his confession should have been suppressed because he was not able to understand English and therefore could not have effectively waived his Miranda rights. We reject this contention. The People met their burden of establishing that the defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights through, inter alia, the testimony of the detective who recorded the defendant's confession. The detective testified that he had conversed with the defendant in English at the scene of the shooting for some 15 minutes prior to administering Miranda rights and that after the warnings had been given, the defendant indicated that he had understood them. In light of the foregoing, the burden of persuasion shifted to the defendant (see, People v Love, 85 A.D.2d 799, affd 57 N.Y.2d 998), who failed to adduce evidence supporting his contention that he did not comprehend his rights.
Furthermore, we find that the People disproved the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v DeCampoamor, 140 A.D.2d 537). There was evidence establishing that the decedent was unarmed and that the defendant shot him six times at close range, five of the shots being fired while the victim was lying on the floor.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit, or any errors of law with respect thereto are not preserved for our review and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Kunzeman, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.