What is the test for admissibility of statements made by a defendant during questioning?

Defendant challenges the admissibility of the statements on the ground they were involuntary, coerced, and obtained in violation of his right against self incrimination in that he lacked the mental capacity to waive his Miranda rights. Also, he claims that the statements were the product of an earlier interrogation--at 3 p.m. in [783 P.2d 219] the hospital emergency room--at which no Miranda warnings were given. And finally defendant argues that various instructions permitted the jury to consider the statements in an improper manner. Except as to the alleged instructional error, the simple answer to these challenges is that no objections were made. A defendant must make a specific objection on Miranda grounds at the trial level in order to preserve a Miranda claim on appeal. (People v. Milner (1988) 45 Cal.3d 227, 236, 246 Cal.Rptr. 713, 753 P.2d 669.) Alternatively, however, defendant contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel to the extent that counsel failed to object to the introduction of the evidence on voluntariness grounds and failed to request proper instructions.