In People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, the trial court instructed the jury that two witnesses were accomplices as a matter of law, and defined an accomplice as essentially an aider and abettor. (Id. at p. 210.) The defendant argued the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that "an accomplice could also be a person who 'directly' committed the crime" resulted in a conclusive presumption against his defense that two testifying accomplices "were the actual killers." (Id. at p. 211.) The Supreme Court followed its precedent in People v. Heishman (1988) and rejected the claim. (Ibid.) The California Supreme Court held that whether custody has occurred short of a formal arrest for purposes of the Miranda rule depends on the totality of the circumstances, including such factors as: "(1) the site of the interrogation; (2) whether the investigation has focused on the suspect; (3) whether the indicia of arrest are present; and (4) the length and form of the questioning." No one factor is dispositive, and the mere fact a person is a suspect does not establish custodial interrogation. (Ibid.) The Court held "a motion in limine to exclude evidence is a sufficient manifestation of objection to protect the record on appeal when it satisfies the basic requirements of Evidence Code section 353, i.e.: (1) a specific legal ground for exclusion is advanced and subsequently raised on appeal; (2) the motion is directed to a particular identifiable body of evidence; and (3) the motion is made at a time before or during trial when the trial judge can determine the evidentiary question in its appropriate context. When such a motion is made and denied, the issue is preserved for appeal." ( Id. at p. 190.)