1HV0iyl#CEB
1HV0iyl#CEB
1HV0iyl#CEB
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
describing it as “not a close loving” one. At the party, Black saw one of<br />
defendant’s angry outbursts, during which he cursed at his guests.<br />
Several weeks before the murders, Black ran into Mary and her daughter,<br />
Ashley, at the shopping mall. When Ashley asked Mary if they were going home,<br />
Mary replied, “You saw how mad your father was, we can’t go home yet.”<br />
II. DISCUSSION<br />
A. Guilt Phase Issues<br />
1. Suppression Motion<br />
At trial, defendant moved to suppress evidence of his videotaped interview<br />
with the police on the ground that he was unlawfully seized under the Fourth<br />
Amendment when taken to the detective bureau and subjected to custodial<br />
interrogation without being given Miranda warnings (Miranda v. Arizona (1966)<br />
384 U.S. 436). The trial court denied the motion. It found that because defendant<br />
was not in custody, Miranda warnings were not required. Consequently, the<br />
prosecution played for the jury the videotape of defendant’s interview during its<br />
case-in-chief. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying<br />
his suppression motion. We find no error. We conclude that defendant was not<br />
seized when taken to the detective bureau and not in custody when questioned by<br />
the detectives.<br />
a. Underlying Facts<br />
Towards the end of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, the prosecution recalled<br />
Detective Shumway to present evidence of defendant’s interview with the<br />
police. At that point, defense counsel moved to suppress evidence of the<br />
interview. Counsel argued that he had believed defendant voluntarily<br />
accompanied the officers to the detective bureau until Officer McCarthy<br />
completed his trial testimony.<br />
18