In State v. Porter, 303 N.C. 680, 692, 281 S.E.2d 377, 385-86 (1981), the trial judge determined the admissibility of Porter's statement in a voir dire hearing, finding that the statements were "spontaneous utterances, voluntarily given," and not in response to an in-custody interrogation within the meaning of Miranda: The conversation to which defendant Porter objects transpired immediately after both defendants were apprehended and handcuffed. Officer Wilson radioed his supervisor to inform him that two suspects had been taken into custody. The supervisor asked Officer Wilson if he had recovered a bank bag. Defendant Porter heard the question over the radio and stated, "The bank bag is in the car." Officer Wilson then asked "What bank bag?", to which Porter replied, "The bag from the robbery." Porter, 303 N.C. at 691, 281 S.E.2d at 385. The Court provided the following analysis: Porter's initial statement that "the bank bag is in the car" was clearly the type of volunteered statement expressly excluded from the Miranda holding. The question by Officer Wilson's supervisor was addressed to Officer Wilson, not to defendant. Porter's response was spontaneous and voluntary, and therefore admissible despite the fact that he had not yet been informed of his constitutional rights. Id. at 692, 281 S.E.2d at 385. The Court further determined that the question Officer Wilson addressed to defendant - "What bag?" - did not "convert the dialogue into an 'interrogation' within the meaning of Miranda," because "'a voluntary in-custody statement does not become the product of an 'in-custody interrogation' simply because an officer, in the course of appellant's narration, asks defendant to explain or clarify something he has already said voluntarily.'" Id. at 692, 281 S.E.2d at 385.