Opinion ID: 2507905
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The May 17 Statement to Dr. Trompetter.

Text: Defendant next argues that Dr. Trompetter's failure to readvise him of his Miranda rights following the brief interlude after Detective Bennett's questioning constitutes a Miranda violation.
Following the completion of Detective Bennett's interview, Dr. Trompetter interviewed defendant. It was stipulated that Dr. Trompetter stated, As Dan [Bennett] said, I'm working with the DA's office, so the Miranda warning, I'm sure you got at some point in all this, it applies to me, too. The trial court ruled Dr. Trompetter's statement admissible.
An examination of a criminal defendant by a psychiatrist or psychologist retained by the prosecution constitutes a custodial interrogation for Fifth Amendment purposes and must be preceded by Miranda warnings. ( Estelle v. Smith (1981) 451 U.S. 454, 466-469, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359.) But where a subsequent interrogation is reasonably contemporaneous[ ] with the prior knowing and intelligent waiver, a readvisement of Miranda rights is unnecessary. ( People v. Braeseke (1979) 25 Cal.3d 691, 701, 159 Cal.Rptr. 684, 602 P.2d 384, vacated and cause remanded (1980) 446 U.S. 932, 100 S.Ct. 2147, 64 L.Ed.2d 784, reaffd. (1980) 28 Cal.3d 86, 168 Cal.Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149.) Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights by Detective Bennett and made a full and voluntary waiver. Miranda does not require a second advisement when a new interviewer steps into the room. In the present case, the record indicates that the gap between the end of Detective Bennett's interview and the start of Dr. Trompetter's interview was a few minutes and that Dr. Trompetter informed defendant that the Miranda warning applied to him. There was no error. (See People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 387, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 28 P.3d 34; People v. Mickle (1991) 54 Cal.3d 140, 170, 284 Cal.Rptr. 511, 814 P.2d 290.)