In People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476 (1982) the defendant, without any prompting, asked a police officer why he had been arrested and after being informed of the charge, the defendant proceeded to make an incriminating statement. In finding the statement spontaneous and not the produce of any "subtle maneuvering," the Court of Appeals held that: The officer immediately responded to the defendant's question; there was no hesitation or delay evidencing a desire to exploit the elements of time and place. . . . The answer the officer gave was brief and impersonal; it did not go beyond the question asked. It did not provide a complete evidentiary recital of the circumstances known to the police so as to leave the defendant with the impression that "anything but an open admission would be futile" (Rivers, supra, at 480.)