Opinion
Case No. 990078-CA.
Filed May 31, 2002. (Not For Official Publication)
Appeal from the Fourth District, Provo Department, The Honorable Anthony W. Schofield.
Margaret P. Lindsay and Patrick V. Lindsay, Provo, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Jeffrey T. Colemere, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Billings, Davis, and Greenwood.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
The arguments raised by Defendant are matters that are "clearly and unequivocally disposed of on the basis of well-established Utah case law." Grand County v. Rogers, 2002 UT 25,¶ 14, 44 P.3d 734; see State v. Mirquet, 914 P.2d 1144, 1146 (Utah 1996) ("The standard for determining when a defendant is `in custody' for Miranda purposes is well-settled.").
Defendant does not challenge the trial court's factual findings; he challenges only its conclusion that he was not in custody. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court was correct in its decision. The officer who questioned Defendant testified that Defendant voluntarily accompanied him to his vehicle, and stated that "it was more of a request for him to follow me [to my vehicle]. He was not commanded in anything." The officer testified that he told Defendant he was not under arrest, that he would not be arrested, and that Defendant was free to go any time he wanted to end the interview. The officer testified that he repeated these statements about half way through the interview. We conclude Defendant's "freedom of action [was not] curtailed to an extent associated with a formal arrest." Mirquet, 914 P.2d at 1147; see also State v. Wood, 868 P.2d 70, 83 (Utah 1993) (concluding defendant was not in custody despite the fact that the interview was conducted in a police car because the defendant "entered the patrol car willingly" and was "free to leave at any time").
Defendant also argues that the court committed reversible error by not making written findings before allowing videotaped child victim testimony in evidence. Written findings are not required, and the "record as a whole sufficiently indicates that the comprehensive inquiries mandated . . . have been made." State v. Pecht, 2002 UT 41,¶ 34, 446 Utah Adv. Rep. 46.
Defendant's last point is that the information did not provide him with adequate notice or specificity with regard to the crime charged. This case is indistinguishable from State v. Wilcox, 808 P.2d 1028 (Utah 1991), and for the reasons stated therein, Defendant's argument on this issue fails.
Affirmed.
Judith M. Billings, Associate Presiding Judge; Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge.