What is the standard of review for Miranda issues?

As an appellate court, we have a standard of review for Miranda custody issues. The review is one of fact, subject to our assessment of substantial evidence. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 678.) "In reviewing a trial court's Miranda ruling, we accept [the trial court's] resolution of disputed facts and inferences and its evaluations of credibility, if supported by substantial evidence." (People v. Bacon (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1082, 1105.) We then "independently determine, from the undisputed facts and facts properly found by the trial court, whether the challenged statement was illegally obtained. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) While we make an independent determination from our review of the record below, we also give " 'great weight to the considered conclusions' of a lower court that has previously reviewed the same evidence. [Citation.]" (People v. Jennings (1988) 46 Cal.3d 963, 979.)

On the separate issue of voluntariness raised by defendant, it is the burden of the prosecution to establish " 'by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant's confession was voluntary. . . . [] Under both state and federal law, courts apply a "totality of the circumstances" test to determine the voluntariness of a confession. . . . On appeal, the trial court's findings as to the circumstances surrounding the confession are upheld if supported by substantial evidence, but the trial court's finding as to the voluntariness of the confession is subject to independent review. [Citation.]' " (People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 114.)

Miranda warnings are required if the individual is undergoing "custodial interrogation." (Miranda, supra , 384 U.S 436, 444.) "[T]he ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement' of the degree associated with a formal arrest." (California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125.) The fact defendant was taken from work to a police station does not amount to evidence of custody. In People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 386, a murder suspect was not in custody even though he interviewed at the sheriff's office. (Id. at pp. 397-398.) He freely went with the officers to the station and was told he was free to leave and would

Page 8

eventually be driven home. (Ibid.) In People v. Chutan (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1276, the defendant was invited to the police station, expressly told he was not under arrest, and driven away after he gave a statement. (Id. at pp. 1282-1283.)