What are the relevant facts for determining whether a defendant was in custody prior to making any admissions?

Because defendant did not argue to the trial court that he was in custody before making any admissions, this argument is forfeited on appeal. (People v. Haley (2004) 34 Cal.4th 283, 300.) Furthermore, we cannot conclude on the record before us that defendant's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that defendant was in custody prior to making any admissions.

"An appellate court should not declare that a police officer acted unlawfully, suppress relevant evidence, set aside a jury verdict, and brand a defense attorney incompetent unless it can be truly confident all the relevant facts have been developed and the police and prosecution had a full opportunity to defend the admissibility of the evidence." (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 267.) The relevant facts for determining whether defendant was in custody relate to whether a reasonable person in defendant's position would believe there was "a restraint on [his] freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." (People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 386, 395.) The record on appeal is lacking information that is critical to this analysis because it contains hardly any facts about what happened between the time police contacted defendant at his house on the evening of March 13 and interviewed him on the morning of March 14. Officers Poveda and Gamble did not testify at the suppression hearing, and defendant's testimony during the hearing was primarily focused on the interview with police, not what happened before the interview.⁴ Defendant's testimony during the

Page 14