People v. Clark CA3

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant challenges the finding that he was not in custody when police interrogated him. He maintains that based on the factors cited in People v. Aguilera (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1151 (Aguilera), the interview was a custodial interrogation, triggering the requirement of a Miranda admonishment and waiver. Defendant argues that although he agreed to the interview, the voluntary nature was diminished by the surrounding circumstances. According to defendant, the

were probably turning to run for their lives, and that’s why they suffered wounds to the left sides of their bodies instead of from the front, which is what you would expect if they had been shot while attacking [defendant].” 4A pathologist opined that R.J. was alive when the car was set ablaze based on carbon monoxide found in his blood.

3 interview’s express purpose was to question him as a suspect. He was interrogated in a small room far from his home. While he was told he was not under arrest “right now,” the fact that his phone and money had been taken indicated his liberty had been restricted. Similarly, the offer to leave was not viable because his money and phone were taken, and he had only…