Volume 31 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Confessions — Suspect Not in Custody —</bold> <bold>Effect.</bold> A suspect need not be advised of his constitutional rights before he is in custody, and precustodial statements are not subject to suppression.<page_number>Page 245</page_number> <bold>[2] Criminal Law — Confessions — Suppression — Harmless Error.</bold> Any error in not suppressing a statement of a criminal defendant is harmless if the statement is not used in the State's case in chief. <bold>[3] Arrest — Probable Cause — Private Premises — Consent To</bold> <bold>Enter — Lack of Warrant — Effect.</bold> A warrantless felony arrest in a private residence based on probable cause is valid if the police had consent to enter. <bold>[4] Searches and Seizures — Objects in Plain View — Test.</bold> Objects may be seized without a warrant under the plain view doctrine if the police have a right to be where the objects can be plainly seen and it is obvious to them, from their knowledge of the crime, that the objects are evidence in the case. Other evidence revealed to the police when the objects are being taken may likewise be seized. <bold>[5] Criminal Law — Review — Invited Error — Basic Rights.</bold> Error which is invited by a criminal defendant is not subject to appellate review, even if the error involves a constitutional right. <bold>[6] Trial — Comment on Evidence — Determination — Reference to</bold> <bold>"Victim."</bold> Whether a trial judge's statement constitutes an impermissible comment on the evidence by virtue of its prejudicial effect on the defendant's right to a fair trial depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As a general rule, a single reference to "the victim" in the context of a criminal trial is harmless error.