What is the current state of the law on the Miranda warning and waiver?

" 'Whether a defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes is a mixed question of law and fact. [Citation.] When reviewing a trial court's determination that a defendant did not undergo custodial interrogation, an appellate court must 'apply a deferential substantial evidence standard' [citation] to the trial court's factual findings regarding the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, and it must independently decide whether, given those circumstances, "a reasonable person in [the] defendant's position would have felt free to end the questioning and leave" [citation].' (People v. Leonard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1400.)" (People v. Moore, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 395.)

Page 8

In our view, there was no custodial interrogation triggering a need for a Miranda warning and waiver.