questioning by considering factors in California

1970This contention is correct. (9) In determining whether questioning constitutes a process of interrogations, we must "analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances." ( People v. Stewart, supra, 62 Cal.2d 571, 579 .) (8b) In the instant case police asked but a single question, immediately after arrest, in the very spot where the arrest was made.

1970In determining whether questioning constitutes a process of interrogations, we must “analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances.” (People v. Stewart, supra, 62 Cal.2d 571, 579 .) In the instant case police asked but a single question, immediately after arrest, in the very spot where the arrest was made.

1979“The question was not ‘inquisitorial,’ ‘intimidating,’ or accusatory.’ (People v. Treloar, 64 Cal.2d 141, 147 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 100 , 410 P.2d 620 ].)” (People v. Terry, supra, 2 Cal.3d 362, 383 .) It is apparent that the only answer the officer expected or was interested in was “Yes” or “No”; but defendant elected to volunteer, “let me die.” In light of Officer Burwell’s personal observations of defendant’s conduct in swallowing the balloons of heroin, he had a justifiable interest in asking him if he wanted his stomach pumped.

1979“The question was not ‘inquisitorial,’ ‘intimidating,’ or accusatory.’ (People v. Treloar, 64 Cal.2d 141, 147 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 100 , 410 P.2d 620 ].)” (People v. Terry, supra, 2 Cal.3d 362, 383 .) It is apparent that the only answer the officer expected or was interested in was “Yes” or “No”; but defendant elected to volunteer, “let me die.” In light of Officer Burwell’s personal observations of defendant’s conduct in swallowing the balloons of heroin, he had a justifiable interest in asking him if he wanted his stomach pumped.

1968Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, 378 U.S. 478, 490-491 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977, 985-986 ]; People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-354 .) To determine whether "a process of interrogations" had been undertaken, we must apply an objective test and "anlayze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances." (People v. Stewart, 62 Cal.2d 571, 579 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ].) Here the officers were eng

1968Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, 378 U.S. 478, 490-491 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977, 985-986 ]; People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-354 .) To determine whether "a process of interrogations" had been undertaken, we must apply an objective test and "anlayze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances." (People v. Stewart, 62 Cal.2d 571, 579 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ].) Here the officers were eng

1982Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436 ), stated: “Whatever may be the subjective intent of the interrogators, we must, in order to determine if the police are carrying out ‘a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements’ [citation], analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances.” If we ignore the subjective intent of Huston and look only to the obje

1982Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436 ), stated: "Whatever may be the subjective intent of the interrogators, we must, in order to determine if the police are carrying out `a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements' [citation], analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances." If we ignore the subjective intent of Huston and look only to the obje

2024(Id. at pp. 510-511.) In determining whether the defendant’s confession was elicited in violation of Miranda, the Supreme Court considered “ ‘the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and 8. time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances.’ ”5 (Quicke, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 513.) The court found “the ‘time of the interrogation’ was the moment of the discovery of the murder and coincident with the arrest of [the] defendant.

1972(People v. Quicke (1969) 71 Cal.2d 502, 513 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 455 P.2d 787 ]; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571, 579 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ].) In examining the relevant circumstances under which the conversation here at issue took place, we find present few, if any, of the elements which were of obvious concern to the United States and California Supreme Courts.

2021The standard is whether ‘under all the circumstances involved in a given case, the questions are “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” ’ [Citation.] This is an objective standard. ‘The subjective intent of the [officer] is relevant but not conclusive. [Citation.] The relationship of the question asked to the crime suspected is highly relevant. [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 637 .) “We review the trial court’s 21 finding regarding whether interrogation occurred for substantial evidence or clear error.” (People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th

2021The standard is whether ‘under all the circumstances involved in a given case, the questions are “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” ’ [Citation.] This is an objective standard. ‘The subjective intent of the [officer] is relevant but not conclusive. [Citation.] The relationship of the question asked to the crime suspected is highly relevant. [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 637 .) “We review the trial court’s 21 finding regarding whether interrogation occurred for substantial evidence or clear error.” (People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th

1979(Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706-707 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ].) “In determining whether questioning constitutes a process of interrogations, we must ‘analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Terry, 2 Cal.3d 362, 383 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 466 P.2d 961 ]; People v. Myles, 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 431 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 348 ]

1979(Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706-707 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ].) “In determining whether questioning constitutes a process of interrogations, we must ‘analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Terry, 2 Cal.3d 362, 383 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 466 P.2d 961 ]; People v. Myles, 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 431 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 348 ]

1979(Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706-707 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ].) “In determining whether questioning constitutes a process of interrogations, we must ‘analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Terry, 2 Cal.3d 362, 383 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 466 P.2d 961 ]; People v. Myles, 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 431 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 348 ]

1979(Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706-707 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ].) “In determining whether questioning constitutes a process of interrogations, we must ‘analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Terry, 2 Cal.3d 362, 383 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 466 P.2d 961 ]; People v. Myles, 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 431 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 348 ]

1979(Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706-707 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ].) “In determining whether questioning constitutes a process of interrogations, we must ‘analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Terry, 2 Cal.3d 362, 383 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 466 P.2d 961 ]; People v. Myles, 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 431 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 348 ]

1979(Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706-707 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ].) “In determining whether questioning constitutes a process of interrogations, we must ‘analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Terry, 2 Cal.3d 362, 383 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 466 P.2d 961 ]; People v. Myles, 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 431 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 348 ]

1967(Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, 378 U.S. 478, 490-491 ; People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-354 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ].) Here it is apparent that at the scene of his arrest the officers were engaging in normal investigatory questioning and were not carrying out “a process of interrogations that lent itself to eliciting incriminating statements.” (Cf. People v. Cotter, 63 Cal.2d 386, 393 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ].) The test in determining whether this requirement of the Dorado rule is fulfilled is an objective one, turn ing upon an analysis of “the total situation which en

1967(Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, 378 U.S. 478, 490-491 ; People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-354 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ].) Here it is apparent that at the scene of his arrest the officers were engaging in normal investigatory questioning and were not carrying out “a process of interrogations that lent itself to eliciting incriminating statements.” (Cf. People v. Cotter, 63 Cal.2d 386, 393 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ].) The test in determining whether this requirement of the Dorado rule is fulfilled is an objective one, turn ing upon an analysis of “the total situation which en

1968Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, 378 U.S. 478, 490-491 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977, 985-986 ]; People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-354 .) To determine whether "a process of interrogations" had been undertaken, we must apply an objective test and "anlayze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances." (People v. Stewart, 62 Cal.2d 571, 579 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ].) Here the officers were eng

1968Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, 378 U.S. 478, 490-491 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977, 985-986 ] ; People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-354 .) To determine whether “a process of interrogations” had been undertaken, we must apply an objective test and “anlayze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances.” (People v. Stewart, 62 Cal.2d 571, 579 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ].) Here the officers were en

1966In determining whether there was a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements, Stewart requires that we "analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances." ( People v. Stewart, supra, 62 Cal.2d 571, 579 .) As was stated in People v. North, 233 Cal. App.2d 884 (at p. 888 [ 44 Cal. Rptr. 123 ]): "Manifestly, the `total situation' cannot be `analyzed,' an

1966In determining whether there was a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements, Stewart requires that we "analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances." ( People v. Stewart, supra, 62 Cal.2d 571, 579 .) As was stated in People v. North, 233 Cal. App.2d 884 (at p. 888 [ 44 Cal. Rptr. 123 ]): "Manifestly, the `total situation' cannot be `analyzed,' an

1966In the recent case of People v. Stockman, 63 Cal.2d 494 , the Supreme Court said at pages 497-498 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 365 , 407 P.2d 277 ] : “In determining whether the police carried out a ‘process of interrogations, ’ we must ‘analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances. ’ ’’ Respondent further relies on People v. Cotter, 63 Cal.2d 386 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ], There, the deput

1966In the recent case of People v. Stockman, 63 Cal.2d 494 , the Supreme Court said at pages 497-498 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 365 , 407 P.2d 277 ] : “In determining whether the police carried out a ‘process of interrogations, ’ we must ‘analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances. ’ ’’ Respondent further relies on People v. Cotter, 63 Cal.2d 386 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 405 P.2d 862 ], There, the deput

1969(See People v. Arnold (1967) 66 Cal.2d 438, 448 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 115 , 426 P.2d 515 ].) [8] In probing the third factor, whether the officers had carried out a process of interrogations that lent itself to eliciting incriminating statements, we "analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances." ( People v. Stewart, supra, 62 Cal.2d 571, 579 .) [9] Following the mandate of Stewart we note th

1969(See People v. Arnold (1967) 66 Cal.2d 438, 448 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 115 , 426 P.2d 515 ].) [8] In probing the third factor, whether the officers had carried out a process of interrogations that lent itself to eliciting incriminating statements, we "analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances." ( People v. Stewart, supra, 62 Cal.2d 571, 579 .) [9] Following the mandate of Stewart we note th

1966(Pen Code, §§ 834, 835; People v. Gibson, 220 Cal.App.2d 15, 21 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 775 ].) In ascertaining whether a process of interrogation had begun we must " analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances.” (People v. Stewart, supra, at p. 579 .) Here, the length of the crucial interrogation at the warehouse is not revealed, but the record does show that appellant had already been questio

1966(Pen Code, §§ 834, 835; People v. Gibson, 220 Cal.App.2d 15, 21 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 775 ].) In ascertaining whether a process of interrogation had begun we must " analyze the total situation which envelops the questioning by considering such factors as the length of the interrogation, the place and time of the interrogation, the nature of the questions, the conduct of the police and all other relevant circumstances.” (People v. Stewart, supra, at p. 579 .) Here, the length of the crucial interrogation at the warehouse is not revealed, but the record does show that appellant had already been questio

1965(See People v. Beverly, 233 Cal.App.2d 702, 714-717 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 743 ].) Instead, defendant spontaneously *649 volunteered the main statement which implicated him.

1965(See People v. Beverly, 233 Cal.App.2d 702, 714-717 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 743 ].) Instead, defendant spontaneously *649 volunteered the main statement which implicated him.

1965See also People v. Sears, 62 Cal.2d 737 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 401 P.2d 938 ].) Such analysis demonstrates that in each instance the police were involved in a process of interrogations designed to elicit incriminating statements from the accused, and that, therefore, the accusatory stage had been reached.

1965See also People v. Sears, 62 Cal.2d 737 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 401 P.2d 938 ].) Such analysis demonstrates that in each instance the police were involved in a process of interrogations designed to elicit incriminating statements from the accused, and that, therefore, the accusatory stage had been reached.