Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
We agree with the findings of the suppression court and with its conclusion that defendant was not in custody when he was in the police car at the scene of the fire. The statements made at that time, therefore, were admissible even though they were made before defendant was given his Miranda warnings.
The court's charge defining custody was correct (see, People v Yukl,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.