People v. Vue CA3

DISCUSSION

I. The Parties’ Contentions

Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statements because: (1) the objective circumstances show that he was subjected to custodial interrogation before he was given the Miranda warnings, and (2) Detective Darlene Killip, who administered the polygraph examination, employed additional deceptive tactics identified by Miranda that purportedly rendered defendant’s later statements to Detective Lawrie involuntary. He also contends the Miranda violation was prejudicial beyond a reasonable doubt because the prosecution relied heavily on his confession in its closing argument. The Attorney General replies: (1) defendant was not in custody before he received Miranda warnings; (2) defendant has forfeited any general involuntariness argument because his motion in the trial court alleged only a Miranda violation, but even if not forfeited, defendant’s involuntariness argument lacks merit; (3) any error in introducing the statements the jury heard was harmless given the totality of the evidence, including

Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3 the victims’ testimony and defendant’s…