Northcutt

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Wayne Northcutt raises three issues on appeal. We affirm.

First, the district court denied Northcutt’s motion to suppress his statement. Northcutt had told a prison official that his cellmate did not know that Northcutt possessed a knife in their cell. Northcutt argues that his statement was elicited in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Taking Northcutt’s version of the facts as true, we agree with the district court that the officer’s question, asked as Northcutt was being returned to his cell, was not “interrogation” within the meaning of Miranda. 384 U.S. at 478 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; see also United States v. Foster, 227 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that “not all direct questions constitute interrogation”). Moreover, even if admission of the statement was erroneous, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, *791 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). Several prison guards saw Northcutt chasing the stabbing victim with a knife, the incident was recorded on videotape, and prison guards recovered the knife from Northcutt after the incident. See…