[Published Decision] Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court erred in admitting evidence of appellant’s pre-arrest statements to police, which were made in violation of Miranda, and that the erroneous admission of evidence prejudiced appellant. In reaching this decision, the Court found that officers transformed appellant’s home into a “police-dominated atmosphere,” when five officers, all armed with guns, arrived at appellant’s home at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of the incident and proceeded to interrogate appellant as a suspect (and not a witness). The Court emphasized that appellant never consented to police questioning, was a minor, and was led to believe he was not free to leave or end the interrogation.
^