Can a defendant exclude his statement to the police on the grounds it was obtained in violation of Miranda?

Before trial started, defendant moved to exclude his statement to the police on the ground it was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed2 694] (Miranda). The court denied the motion, and an issue in this appeal is whether this was error. It is undisputed no Miranda warning was given before the police interviewed defendant. Thus, the issue here is whether the police questioned defendant while he was in custody.

We previously affirmed the conviction, accepting the argument of the Attorney General we did not need to determine whether the interrogation violated the restriction of Miranda because defendant had elected to testify, making any error in denial of the motion harmless, because a statement taken in violation of Miranda "is admissible to impeach the defendant's credibility as a witness, so long as the statement otherwise is voluntary." (People v. Peevy (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1184, 1188.) We reached this conclusion because neither in the trial court nor here did defendant assert he would not have testified but for the denial of his pretrial motion, and defendant failed to respond to the Attorney General's argument based on his decision to testify by failing to file a reply brief.