People v. Mayfield1/2/1997
hat a hearing was held under Evidence Code section 402, and that the trial court ruled the evidence admissible, but the People maintain that the issues are not preserved for review because the defense did not renew its objections when the evidence was offered during the trial.
We find no waiver. Because the defense motion to exclude evidence raised a specific objection and identified the evidence to which it was directed, because it was made to the trial court at the outset of trial, and because the trial court was then able to view the evidence in its appropriate context, the trial court's ruling is subject to review on appeal even though the motion to exclude was not renewed when the prosecution offered the evidence during the trial. ( People v. Crittenden, (supra) , 9 Cal. 4th 83, 125-127; People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 522, 549, fn. 3 [280 Cal. Rptr. 631, 809 P.2d 290]; People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 152, 189-190 [279 Cal. Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949].)
3. Miranda
Before being subjected to "custodial interrogation," a suspect "must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." ( Miranda v. Arizona, (supra) , 384 U.S. 436, 444 [16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 706-707].) Statements elicited in violation of this rule are generally inadmissible in a criminal trial. ( Id. at pp. 492, 494 [16 L. Ed. 2d at pp. 733-735]; but see also Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222 [28 L. Ed. 2d 1, 91 S. Ct. 643] [permitting otherwise inadmissible statements to be used for impeachment of testifying defendant].) An officer need not give the Miranda warnings, however, in a situation posing such a threat to the public safety that the officer's need for answers "outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination." ( New York v. Quarles (1984) 467 U.S. 649, 657 [81 L. Ed. 2d 550, 558, 104 S. Ct. 2626].)
In applying Miranda, as this court has explained, one normally begins by asking whether custodial interrogation has taken place. "The phrase 'custodial interrogation' is crucial. The adjective [custodial] encompasses any situation in which 'a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.' ( Miranda v. Arizona, (supra) , 384 U.S. at p. 444 [16 L. Ed. 2d at p. 706].) The noun [interrogation] 'refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.' ( Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301 [64 L. Ed. 2d 297, 308, 100 S. Ct. 1682], fn. omitted.)" ( People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 612, 648 [286 Cal. Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84].)
Here, defendant sought to exclude statements he made to police negotiators over the telephone while he was inside the Haverstick residence and statements he made to Deputy Stein after he had surrendered and while he was in handcuffs. The trial court denied the motion to exclude, concluding that defendant was not in custody, for purposes of the Miranda rule, while he was inside the Haverstick residence, and that the statements he made to Deputy Stein were not made in response to police interrogation.
In reviewing this ruling, we accept the trial court's factual findings, based on its resolution of factual disputes, its choices among conflicting inferences, and its evaluations of witness credibility, provided that these findings are supported by substantial evidence. ( People v. Crittenden, (supra) , 9 Cal. 4th 83, 128.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|