Alvarez

DISCUSSION

1. Alvarez Forfeited His Miranda Objection a. Governing law “A defendant who is in custody . . . must be given Miranda warnings before police officers may interrogate him.” (People v. 2 Haley (2004) 34 Cal.4th 283, 300.) Custodial interrogation means “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” (Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at p. 444; accord, Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292, 296; People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449, 476.) Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are generally inadmissible; they may be admitted for the limited purpose of impeachment if otherwise voluntarily made. (Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222, 225; People v. Case (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1, 26.) b. Relevant proceedings At trial the prosecutor asked Deputy Capilla on direct examination, “When you saw that plastic bag, did you ask the defendant if the plastic bag was his?” Capilla responded, “My partner [Deputy Soto] asked him in my presence if it was his.”

2 “As a prophylactic safeguard to protect a suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the United…