Opinion ID: 2313282
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The statements Culver made were admissible

Text: Because we find there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to suppress, we must also address Culver's argument that the Superior Court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to suppress the statements he made to Detective Kline upon the presentment of the warrant for his arrest on the weapon charge. We review the Superior Court's denial of a motion to suppress after an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. [57] To the extent that the claims of error implicate questions of law, our review is de novo. [58] Culver argues that the statement should have been suppressed because the officer did not advise Culver of his Miranda [59] rights before presenting him with the warrant. The State does not dispute that Culver was in custody, however it argues that the officer did not engage in the functional equivalent of interrogation, so Miranda warnings were not needed. We agree. The trial judge accepted the officer's testimony and found that his intention was not to question Culver, who made the statement voluntarily and not in response to any question, in order to exculpate himself. Culver's unforeseeable statement was admissible against him. [60] Accordingly, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Culver's motion to suppress this statement. We find no merit to Culver's arguments and would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court in all respects. We respectfully dissent.