Is a statement obtained as a result of a "custodial interrogation" admissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief?

A statement obtained from a suspect as the result of a "custodial interrogation" is not admissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief, absent a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to remain silent, the right to presence of an attorney and, in the case of an indigent suspect, the right to appointed counsel. (People v. Sims (1993) 5 Cal.4th 405, 440, overruled on another ground by People v. Storm (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1007, 1031-1032; People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 541 (Elizalde).) "Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent." (Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 300-301 (Innis).) An interrogation is custodial when "a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his

Page 9