What is the test for admitting a statement made by a defendant during his arrest but before receiving the warnings against self-incrimination required by Miranda?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Seaton, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 26 Cal.4th 598, 28 P.3d 175 (Cal. 2001):

After his arrest but before receiving the warnings against self-incrimination required by Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, defendant made a brief statement in which he said he had been asleep for the previous hour and one-half, he had just gotten out of jail, and he had not had sexual relations since his release. The prosecution sought to introduce this statement during its cross-examination of defendant. Defendant objected, claiming the statement was irrelevant, but the trial court ruled the statement was relevant to defendant's credibility.

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court should have excluded the statement because it was obtained in violation of Miranda. Because defendant did not object on this ground in the trial court, he may not now raise this issue. (People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 853-854, 268 Cal.Rptr. 802, 789 P.2d 983.) Defendant's contention that the court should have instructed the jury that statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be considered only for impeachment also fails, because the court made no finding that the statement was obtained in violation of Miranda.

Defendant contends the trial court should have sustained his objection on the ground of relevance. Not so. His false account of his actions at the time of the killing was relevant to whether his trial testimony about those actions was truthful. Defendant asserts that certain truthful

[110 Cal.Rptr.2d 481]

portions of the statement (his explanation that he had just been released from jail and had not recently had sexual relations) were irrelevant and prejudicial and should not have been admitted. Defendant failed to object on this ground in the trial court and thus may not do so here. (People v. Mattson, supra, 50 Cal.3d 826, 853-854, 268 Cal.Rptr. 802, 789 P.2d 983.)

[110 Cal.Rptr.2d 481]

Other Questions


Is a statement made by a defendant to police prior to receiving the warnings required by the Miranda code? (California, United States of America)
Does a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warning, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives his right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant have to give a Miranda warning at the time he was arrested? (California, United States of America)
Under what procedural safeguards under the Miranda Miranda, or otherwise, does a suspect have to be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him? (California, United States of America)
What is the effect of a court ruling that a defendant did not receive a Miranda warning? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the Miranda Miranda Miranda Statement? (California, United States of America)
In a dual jury trial where two defendants have admitted extrajudicial statements against one defendant, what is the procedure in which one of the juries is to be excused? (California, United States of America)
What is the burden of proof required for admitting a defendant's statement at trial? (California, United States of America)
Is counsel incompetent in denying a defendant's motion to exclude his statements to the police in violation of Miranda v. Miranda? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant exclude a statement made by the Defendant under the Miranda Rule? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.