How have the courts treated a motion to exclude statements that allege that a defendant was questioned in violation of Miranda?

Defendant's written motion to exclude the statements asserted he was questioned in violation of Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 and People v. Fioritto (1968) 68 Cal.2d 714, 68 Cal.Rptr. 817, 441 P.2d 625. Defendant testified at the hearing on the motion, asserting that the deputies did not warn him of his rights under Miranda until they had interrogated him for some time. Further, he claimed that they failed to heed his invocation of his right to counsel. He also asserted that the deputies threatened him with the [12 Cal.4th 438] death penalty and that he was undergoing drug withdrawal during the interrogation. On cross-examination, the People sought to question defendant on his pattern of drug use in the weeks before the interrogation, asserting that this evidence was necessary to rebut defendant's claim that he was undergoing drug withdrawal during the interview. Defense counsel strenuously objected to this line of questioning, asserting that it provided improper discovery for the People. Counsel instructed defendant not to answer the questions.