Opinion ID: 1170931
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Statements to Undercover Officer MacIvor.

Text: (14a), (15a) Defendant contends that his statements made to Officer MacIvor were erroneously admitted at trial because he was unlawfully entrapped into making them. He also claims that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by Officer MacIvor's interrogation. As previously noted, during 1979 Officer MacIvor was operating a sting operation in an undercover capacity in San Jose in which he posed as a businessman who purchased stolen property. Three weeks after the Olveda assault and robbery, defendant sold MacIvor the handgun which was subsequently determined to be the weapon used in the murder of Vasquez and the shootings of Romero, Zamora and Olveda. Shortly thereafter MacIvor again twice met with defendant; on the second occasion the undercover officer wore a concealed wire and their conversation was tape-recorded. During these meetings defendant made various inculpatory statements: e.g., that the gun belonged to him and had been in his possession for the last six months; that he had made a lot of money with it during that period; and that it had done a murder. Although defendant was arrested on suspicion of possession of other, unrelated stolen property on the same day he sold the weapon to Officer MacIvor, he was only briefly detained and released. Defendant was not in custody during the subsequent meetings with MacIvor, and had not yet been arrested or charged with these crimes. (14b) Defendant's entrapment claim is plainly without merit. Entrapment is a defense to a charged crime. ( People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675, 688 [153 Cal. Rptr. 459, 591 P.2d 947].) It is not a crime to make incriminating statements to an officer, nor was defendant charged with having done so. (15b) Defendant's reliance on Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974], as authority for suppression of his statements to Officer MacIvor is likewise misplaced. The requirements of Miranda apply only when a suspect is in custody. ( Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 300 [64 L.Ed.2d 297, 307, 100 S.Ct. 1682].) Defendant was not in custody during his meetings with Officer MacIvor. As in People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [124 Cal. Rptr. 752, 541 P.2d 296], we reject defendant's rather preposterous contention that the undercover agent should, prior to insinuating himself into the confidences of [defendant], have delivered to [him] the Miranda warnings normally required as a concomitant of arrest. ( Id., at p. 442.)