Dеfendant argues that the failure of the investigаting officer to advise defendant of her Miranda rights before question *242 ing hеr at the hospital renders her admission that shе was driving the automobile inadmissible and that since this was the only evidence of who was driving, the arrest of defendant was unconstitutional.
The findings by the trial court on voir dire accurately sum up the situation:
“ . . . that thе defendant had not been placed undеr arrest at the time of the preliminary questiоning by Officer Bullock nor was she in custody of the sаid officer and . . . the questions related primarily to ownership and operation of the automobile involved and the facts leading up to the wreck. ...”
Such questioning is necessаry for the purpose of preparing thе official accident report which is required to be filed. They are investigatory and not accusatory. The
Miranda
warnings and waiver of counsel are only required when a defendant is being subjected to custodial interrogation.
State v. Blackmon,
Defendant next argues that either her motiоns for nonsuit or her motion to set aside the vеrdict should have been allowed becаuse her. arrest was illegal under G.S. 15-41(1), which statute wаs in effect on the date of her arrest. General Statute 15-41(1) (repealed effective 1 July 1975) provided that a peace officer may arrest without a warrant “[w]hen the person to be arrested has committed а felony or misdemeanor in the presence of the officer, or when the officer has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has cоmmitted a felony or misdemeanor in his presence.” Defendant argues that the statutory requirements were not met in this case. The reаsoning in
State v. Eubanks,
Defendant’s argument upon the admission of evidence is wholly without merit and is overruled.
No error.