v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)); accord Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). 43 . Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Mirquet, 914 P.2d 1144, 1147 (Utah 1996). 44 . Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 324, 114 S.Ct. 1526 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Mirquet, 914 P.2d at 1147. 45 . See Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138; Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168, 1170 (Utah 1983). 46 . Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 325, 114 S.Ct. 1526. 47 . See Mirquet, 914 P.2d at 1148 (indicating that accusatory questioning is relevant, but does not necessarily establish a coercive environment); Carner, 664 P.2d at 1170 (<HOLDING>); State v. Snyder, 860 P.2d 351, 357 (Utah
holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant holding that the rejection of the exculpatory hearsay testimony of a government witness was in error particularly in view that accusatory hearsay was admitted recognizing import of accusatory statements holding that lab reports are accusatory and subject to confrontation clause holding that police officers testimony indicating he developed the defendant as a suspect after speaking with a nontestifying witness implied that the witness made accusatory statements against defendant and therefore was inadmissible hearsay