The United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a person not in custody must be given Miranda warnings, and held that Miranda warnings are inapplicable to someone who is not in custody. Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 48 L. Ed. 2d 1, 96 S. Ct. 1612 (1976); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). The Supreme Court has stressed that it is the custodial nature of the interrogation that triggers the necessity for adherence to the specific requirements of its Miranda holding. Id. In Ingle v. State, 8 Ark. App. 218, 222, 655 S.W.2d 2, 4 (1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1209, 81 L. Ed. 2d 354, 104 S. Ct. 2397 (1984), this court stated: "In Miranda, the United States Supreme Court said that general on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning in the fact-finding process is not improper because in-custody interrogation is not involved."