When an individual is in custody, a Miranda warning is required before interrogation commences. Therefore, an appellate court reviews the trial court s findings of fact regarding the circumstances surrounding the interrogation under a clearly erroneous standard, but reviews the trial court s decision regarding custody and the need for a Miranda warning de novo. The dissent notes that the appellate court is to give considerable deference to the trial court s resolution of the issue as to when an interrogation becomes custodial. But such deference is not unlimited. There is no bright-line rule for determining whether a defendant is in custody.
Custodial interrogation can still exist even where questioning occurs in the suspect s home.
Because Chevre did not testify or present evidence at the suppression hearing, the police officers descriptions of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation are essentially undisputed. The trial court denied Chevre s motion to exclude his statement regarding possession of the firearm because the court concluded that on the totality of the circumstances Chevre was not in custody at the time of the interrogation and no Miranda warning was required. Because the record supports the trial court s findings of fact relating to the circumstances of the interrogation, they were not clearly erroneous. However, this court must independently review the trial court s legal conclusion that since Chevre was not in custody, no Miranda warning was required. Chevre contends the trial court erroneously concluded he was not in custody when he made a statement acknowledging possession of the firearm.