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

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.Ed.2d 694]. The court denied the motion, and the sole 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 would be whether the police questioned defendant while he was in custody.

But, as the Attorney General points out, we need not determine whether the interrogation violated the restrictions of Miranda because defendant here elected to testify, making any error in denial of the motion harmless. 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.) Neither in the trial court nor here does defendant assert any contention he would not have testified but for the denial of his pretrial motion. In fact, defendant has failed to respond to the Attorney General's argument based upon his decision to testify and thus we conclude he concedes this point.

Page 3

The judgment is affirmed.