When an officer arrives at the scene of a stabbing and asks, "Who did this?"

In ruling that the statements were admissible, the trial court relied on People v. Superior Court (Mahle) (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 476, 83 Cal.Rptr. 771. In Mahle, officers arrived at the scene of a stabbing and asked defendant, "What happened?" Defendant said, "I did it and I'm sorry." When the defendant was arrested and handcuffed, an officer asked, "Where is the knife?" Defendant replied, "Over on the kitchen sink." The Court of Appeal found no violation of Miranda and ruled the knife admissible. The court reasoned that the first inquiry, "What happened?" was purely investigatory and that the second inquiry, immediately following the first inquiry and arrest of defendant, "appears to be part of the investigatory process initiated by the first question, rather than the undertaking of a process of interrogation having for its purpose the eliciting of incriminating statements...." (Id. at p. 489, 83 Cal.Rptr. 771.)

The trial court in this case also relied on People v. Sanchez (1967) 65 Cal.2d 814, 822-824, 56 Cal.Rptr. 648, 423 P.2d 800, vacated and reiterated in relevant part in People v. Sanchez (1969) 70 Cal.2d 562, 577, 75 Cal.Rptr. 642, 451 P.2d 74), in which at the scene of another stabbing, an officer arrived and asked, "Who did this?" When defendant, bloodied and with knife in hand, was pointed out, the officer asked "Why did you do it?" We held defendant's response admissible, concluding that the episode embraced "an almost miniscule time period," occurring immediately after the officer arrived, and that the "primary, if not sole, concern" was apprehension rather than interrogation.