Volume 247 — Kansas Reports

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Custodial Interrogation — Miranda Warnings.</italic> Prior to any custodial interrogation, a defendant must be warned of his or her constitutional rights. The determination of whether interrogation was custodial is made on a case-by-case basis. 2. SAME — <italic>Custodial Interrogation — Miranda Warnings — Objective</italic> <italic>Standard Used to Determine Whether Interrogation Is Custodial.</italic> <italic>Miranda</italic> warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him or her "in custody." An objective standard is used to judge whether an interrogation is custodial. The proper analysis is how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood the situation. 3. APPEAL AND ERROR — <italic>Voluntariness of Confession in Criminal</italic> <italic>Case — Appellate Review.</italic> On appeal, an appellate court will not reverse a determination that a confession was freely, voluntarily, and intelligently given if there is substantial competent evidence to support the determination. 4. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Suspect's Ambiguous Statement as to Whether He</italic> <italic>or She Is Asserting Right to Remain Silent or to Confer with</italic> <italic>Counsel — Interrogator Allowed to Ask Clarifying Questions.</italic> When a suspect makes a statement which may be ambiguous as to whether the suspect is asserting a right to remain silent or to confer with counsel, the interrogator may ask questions to clarify whether the suspect is asserting a right to remain silent or to confer with counsel.