Opinion ID: 2516369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Post-Arrest Statements to Police as Violative of Miranda

Text: ś 21 Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress various statements to police because the statements were elicited without benefit of warning as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). ś 22 The challenged statements consist of defendant's roadside comment to Officer Ebert regarding his arrival in Pinetop in a blue Trans Am, his reference to the gun in his waistband just prior to arrest, his statements while in custody in the interview room, and his inquiry at the Navajo County Sheriff's substation concerning the length of time gun powder residue remains detectable after firing a gun. ś 23 The state points out that although these statements were ruled admissible after the suppression hearing, defendant's claim that the alleged Miranda violations warrant reversal of his convictions is rendered moot because the statements were never offered at trial. ś 24 The state is correct. Even assuming a Miranda violation, non-reference to the statements at trial renders defendant's Miranda objections moot. See State v. Starr, 119 Ariz. 472, 476, 581 P.2d 706, 710 (App.1978) (defendant is not prejudiced where the state makes no reference at trial to statements improperly obtained in violation of Miranda ).