☢ test - Í

received telephone calls without restraint, and she was free to leave the property. The fact that she was the focus of the investigation did not require the law enforcement personnel to give Miranda warnings. Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323-324 (114 S.Ct. 1526, 1529, 128 L.Ed.2d 292) (1994) (‘“Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect....” [Cit.].... “The mere fact that an investigation has focused on a suspect does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings in noncustodial settings.” [Cit.].’)” Accord, Reaves v. State , 284 Ga. 181, 664 S.E.2d 211 (July 11, 2008). 2. Trial court properly ruled statement admissible: defendant, already charged and represented by counsel, initiated conversation with investigator. Investigator reminded her that “he could not discuss the case with her because she was represented by an attorney,” but defendant persisted in making certain statements. “It is clear it was [defendant] who initiated the conversation in which she made the statement she sought to have suppressed, and it was [defendant] who persisted in telling the investigator about the purported existence of conclusively exculpatory evidence after the investigator reminded her he could not discuss the case in the absence of her attorney. Inasmuch as the investigator did not violate [defendant’s] constitutionally-guaranteed rights, the trial court did not err when it denied the motion to suppress.” Accord, Stokes v. State , 281 Ga. 825, 642 S.E.2d 82 (February 26, 2007) (spontaneous statements made by defendant to officer escorting to Georgia from Maryland were properly admitted); Davis v. State , 281 Ga. 871, 644 S.E.2d 113 (April 24, 2007) (Defendant’s statements made to police and district attorney were admissible; defendant initiated discussions and insisted on talking although they told him they couldn’t talk to him in the absence of his attorney.); Grant-Farley v. State , 292 Ga.App. 293, 664 S.E.2d 302 (June 26, 2008) (After invoking right to counsel with one officer, Defendant initiated further statement with different officer, with new Miranda warnings. Held, trial court’s finding that this statement was admissible was not “clearly erroneous.”). Willoughby v. State, 280 Ga. 176, 626 S.E.2d 112 (January 30, 2006). Trial court properly denied motion to suppress defendant’s statements to officer, given without Miranda warnings to officer at police station when defendant was being viewed as a witness, not a suspect. “At that time, defendant was not a suspect; he was not under arrest and was free to leave. Upon the completion of the interview, Det. Zimbrick drove defendant home. The second statement was made four days later when the detective asked defendant to clarify some points made in the previous interview. [fn] Defendant was still considered to be only a witness at that time. Again, he was free to leave the station at any time and he did so at the conclusion of the interview. Under these facts, the trial court was authorized to find that, even though defendant was being interviewed in a police station, he was not subjected to a custodial interrogation, and that, therefore, Miranda warnings were not required. [Cits.]” Accord, Gabriel v. State , 280 Ga. 237, 626 S.E.2d 491 (February 13, 2006); Bell v. State , 280 Ga. 562, 629 S.E.2d 213 (April 25, 2006). State v. Davison, 280 Ga. 84, 623 S.E.2d 500 (December 1, 2005). 1. Officers investigating a robbery/murder went to interview defendant, who gave them a false name. “Since the officers already knew who she was, they threatened to arrest her for giving a false name, and Detective Walker went to get handcuffs.” Defendant then agreed to talk about the murder victim, the detective put away the cuffs, and defendant accompanied the officers to the police station where she gave a videotaped, non-Mirandized statement. Trial court ruled that the statement was custodial and suppressed it for lack of Miranda warnings. Held, trial court erred in ruling the statement custodial. “In the absence of any other factors which would suggest coercion, neither a threat to arrest, nor placement in a police cruiser, is so coercive as to render a statement involuntary.” “The only ‘threat’ here was that [defendant] would be arrested for giving a false name to the officers. However, it is not a coercive tactic for a police officer to threaten to arrest a person for committing a crime in his presence, as he is constitutionally authorized to do. Accordingly, the trial court erred in its legal conclusion that, under the undisputed evidence, [defendant]’s statements were the result of coercive government activity.” 2. Break in custody: “Even assuming that, when she was initially confronted, [defendant] was in custody for purposes of Miranda while the officers prepared to arrest her, the evidence is undisputed that that custody quickly terminated. Statements ‘obtained from even police initiated interrogation are admissible without violating the suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights if there has been an intervening break in custody . [Cits.]’ [Cit.] The threat to arrest [defendant] occurred immediately after the detectives located her and she denied her name. Once the discussion turned to the victim’s death and she agreed to an interview, however, the initial concern over giving a false name became comparatively unimportant, resulting in the decision not to arrest her. There is no indication in the record that custody, if any, and a subsequent break therein induced [defendant]’s cooperation or constituted a mere ploy. See State v. Bymes, 258 Ga. 813, 814 (375 S.E.2d 41) (1989).” Moyer v. State, 275 Ga.App. 366, 620 S.E.2d 637 (September 2, 2005). Overruled to the extent it applies test for admissison of juvenile statements to an adult defendant, Vergara v. State , 283 Ga. 175, 657 S.E.2d 863 (February 25, 2008). A City of Atlanta police officer encountered defendant at the hospital emergency room, seeking treatment for his gunshot wounds. Defendant admitted to the officer that he had participated in an attempted robbery. Determining that the