the lawyer arrived but suppressed the rest. The only issues on appeal related to the pre-arrival interrogation. Although in McClaskey this Court discussed Burbine in upholding the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress, it is not clear from McClaskey whether that case turned on the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or some other provision. Because there is no mention of the Indiana Constitution, and no suggestion that any state constitutional issue was raised, McClaskey does not support the notion that Burbine has been incorporated into Indiana constitutional jurisprudence. 8 . This case is cited throughout the opinion as Moran v. State to avoid confusion with Moran v. Burhine, which is referred to simply as Burbine. 9 . See Brady v. State, 575 N.E.2d 981 (Ind.1991) (<HOLDING>); Peterson v. State, 674 N.E.2d 528, 534 & n. 3
holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative holding that statute allowing videotaped testimony of child witnesses at trial violated state constitutional right of confrontation but not sixth amendment right holding confrontation right not violated by exclusion of defendant from competency hearing of child witnesses where defendant had opportunity for full and effective crossexamination at trial holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial