Mrs. Mauro detailed appellant's behavior prior to and after the homicide, including claims that he saw spacemen. The police placed respondent and his wife, who was also in police custody, in the same small area. between the defendant, Mr. Mauro, and his wife . There was no indication that this officer or the state used this conversation as a device to accumulate incriminating evidence.

.

"Q. The trial court did not dispute the testimony of Officer Manson, which establishes that up to the moment when Mrs. Mauro and Officer Manson entered the room with the tape recorder running, every effort was made to keep respondent from knowing that Mrs. Mauro was in the police station: "Q. First, appellant raises as error the court's refusal to sever the two counts in order to permit a fair determination of guilt under Rule 13.4(a), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. Police conduct may constitute "interrogation" even if the officers do not pose direct questions to the suspect. In light of this evidence, Dr. Gerstenberger diagnosed appellant as suffering from a bipolar affective disorder. In doing so, we believe that language in a recent United States Supreme Court opinion on the right to counsel under the sixth amendment is equally applicable here: Maine v. Moulton, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 106 S. Ct. 477, 487, 88 L. Ed.
denied, 464 U.S. 858, 104 S. Ct. 180, 79 L. Ed.

This Note will assess Mauro in light of the Court's prior decisions. On November 23, 1982, the Flagstaff Police Department received a telephone call from a local K mart store. We disagree that the present case is controlled by these cases. Mr. Roberts, you may proceed whenever you are ready. He bases this statement on his reading of the record that the officers "failed to give respondent any advance warning that Mrs. Mauro was coming to talk to him, that a police officer would accompany her, or that their conversation would be recorded." . Ibid. ARIZONA et al. In other words, the Court has offered a spoon, but will not stir the pot. When he reached an empty field, Mauro buried the suitcase under logs in a woodpile. We doubt that a suspect, told by officers that his wife will be allowed to speak to him, would feel that he was being coerced to incriminate himself in any way. Ibid. They did not create this situation [, The dissent suggests that the Arizona Supreme Court found as a fact that the officers intended to interrogate Mauro and faults us for reversing this allegedly factual finding. . At trial, the doctor testified that Mauro had slipped into a psychotic state some days prior to the killing and had remained there for some weeks after the episode.

Absent a clear abuse of discretion, limitation of voir dire will not be adjudged error on appeal. Mauro indicated that he did not wish to be questioned further without a lawyer present.

But this observation, as the Arizona Supreme Court correctly recognized, is not sufficient to satisfy the concerns of the Fifth Amendment. The court noted that both detectives had acknowledged in pretrial hearings that they knew it was "possible" that Mauro might make incriminating statements if he saw his wife. We find the questions to be direct and relevant. "Accordingly, the Court formulated the now-familiar `procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.' . If a person subjected to custodial interrogation invokes his Miranda rights, the interrogation must cease. Ante, at 528.

Id., at 111-112. Evidence was presented at trial revealing that both spouses engaged in acts of child abuse; however, only one parent committed the homicide. Rather, the court found them both vague and unfair. First, it explained the basis of the officers' decision to allow Mrs. Mauro to meet with her husband in the presence of a policeman: In light of these justifications, the trial court found "that this procedure was not a ruse, nor a subterfuge by the police. There is no evidence that the officers sent Mrs. Mauro in to see her husband for the purpose of eliciting incriminating statements. 85-2121.

The court then concluded that the officers' testimony demonstrated that there had been interrogation, because "[t]hey both knew that if the conversation took place, incriminating statements were likely to be made." Allen instructed Manson not to leave Mr. and Mrs. Mauro alone and suggested that Manson tape-record the conversation.

§§ 13-4031 and -4035.

Cf. "Q. I'd like to ask you some questions concerning police interrogation techniques, if I might. ?"

218).
Attorneys for Petitioner, Counsel of Record. It showed what could not be adequately described by other means. The court ruled that these justifications did not apply in Gant's case because he had left the vehicle voluntarily without being stopped by police or asked to get out of the car. You tried the best you can to stop me. That's correct."

This interrogation was impermissible, the court said, because Mauro previously had invoked the right to have counsel present before being questioned further. JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, dissenting. All questioning then ceased and respondent … "MRS. MAURO: I — "[MR. MAURO]: Shut up.

The case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Finally, the weakness of Mauro's claim that he was interrogated is underscored by examining the situation from his perspective. In, The State should not be permitted to set aside this conclusion with testimony that merely indicates that the evidence-gathering purpose of the police was mixed with other motives. Thus, the Innis Court concluded that the goals of the Miranda safeguards could be effectuated if those safeguards extended not only to express questioning, but also to "its functional equivalent." The Fifth Amendment provides that no "person . In this case, however, the trial court permitted appellant to have counsel participate in the Rule 11 evaluation. If the exact statement is so important that the prosecution would like to use it during trial, then it is apparently incriminating. It was probably during our initial interview.

Accordingly, the trial court admitted the evidence. Working 24/7, 100% Purchase Interrogation includes a "practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect." "The focus in ascertaining whether particular police conduct amounts to interrogation, then, is not on the form of the words used, but the intent of the police officers and the perceptions of the suspect."