State v. Paz

I dissent because I disagree with the majority on the threshold question of whether defendant was in custody. I would hold that he was not.

The majority correctly recognizes that the Miranda1 procedures apply only to custodial interrogations. Its fallacy is in determining the existence or not of custody by choosing between an objective and a subjective test and then defining custody in terms of what a reasonable person would subjectively conclude. The majority premise that custody is determined by selection from the subjective-objective hybrid range of labels is not only fallacious, but it has…