In Carter v. State
, after being arrested for possession of a controlled substance
, appellant made incriminating statements in response to the arresting officer's questioning in the police car on the way to the station. Appellant filed a motion to suppress, alleging that the statements were obtained in violation of his Miranda
The judge admitted the post-Miranda
statements to the arresting officer even though the officer had asked three questions before reading Appellant his Miranda rights
. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial judge improperly admitted Appellant's statements because they were elicited during an illegal two-step interrogation.
The Court of Criminal appeals reversed holding that the record and reasonable inferences from that record support a finding of voluntariness. This case involves the distinction between "inadvertent" pre-Miranda questioning and "deliberate" two-step questioning to avoid Miranda protections.