Judgment affirmed.
The defendant's prearrest statement and two postarrest statements were properly admitted into evidence. The first statement was made while the police were investigating the accident and prior to ascertaining that the defendant was involved therein. As such, the defendant was not in custody at the time he made the statement, which, as a result, was not the product of custodial interrogation (see, People v Yukl,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.