further investigation concerning suspects — the girls saw one man and defendant readily admitted he was the man they saw. It is clear from these facts that defendant was at all material times the exclusive focus of the investigation. Lastly, factor (4) cements our belief that defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation. Utah courts have placed great emphasis on the length and form of the questioning used during an interview. See, e.g., Mincy, 838 P.2d at 653; Sampson, 808 P.2d at 1105. Courts have not found custodial interrogation where the questioning was merely investigatory. Mincy, 838 P.2d at 653. However, when the tone of the questions turns from investigatory to accusatory, custody is likely. Sampson, 808 P.2d at 1105. See also State v. Kelly, 718 P.2d 385, 391 (Utah 1986) (<HOLDING>). “The change from investigatory to accusatory
holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible holding that merely because questioning was designed to produce incriminating responses took place at the police station and occurred only after the defendant was identified as a suspect did not trigger miranda holding that the initial questioning was merely investigatory and miranda warnings were not necessary until after police found incriminating evidence holding that background and pedigree questioning of suspected alien was unconstitutional in the absence of miranda warnings holding that fresh miranda warnings are necessary after right to silence has been invoked