Opinion ID: 1855796
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: February 6-7, 1995 statements

Text: At the time appellant was interviewed by police officers on February 6, 1995, she was not under arrest. Officer DeConcini testified that, at that point, everyone was a suspect and no one was a suspect. Appellant was being interviewed as a [v]ery important witness, the widow of the deceased and the person who co-discovered the body. Appellant was driven to the interview in a police car but DeConcini testified that she was not in custody and that it is not unusual for the police to provide transportation for people they want to interview. She was asked general questions about the chronology of events on the day of the murder and whether the victim kept guns in the house, but Deconcini never challenged her story or asked her if she had committed the murder. DeConcini testified that she was able to track his questions and the transcript of the question and answer session makes it clear that she was capable of providing logical answers. Appellant never requested that the interview be stopped. DeConcini's questions were factual and straight forward and the record is devoid of coercion, manipulation, or trickery. Detective Palmer similarly testified that when he interviewed appellant on February 7, she was not really a suspect in the murder. Rather, the purpose of the interview was simply to establish a rapport with her and to gain a better understanding of the case. Appellant was not arrested and she and Lattu were given a ride home after the interview. Again, there is no indication that appellant objected to the interview or that Palmer engaged in any coercive conduct. We therefore hold that the trial court properly admitted appellant's February 6-7 statements into evidence.