Criminal law — DUI manslaughter — Evidence — Statements of defendant– Defendant’s responses to questions asked after Miranda warnings were given and defendant had agreed to answer questions are admissible — No merit to claim that DUI investigator did not advise defendant that he was conducting criminal investigation — Furthermore, it was not necessary to specifically advise defendant that accident investigation was over and criminal investigation was beginning where Miranda warnings had been given — Fact that DUI investigator asked some questions that had also been asked during accident investigation did not amount to impermissible two-step interrogation technique where there was no intent to deliberately undercut requirements of Miranda — No merit to claim that defendant was coerced into answering DUI investigator’s questions because he was led to believe that he would not be arrested if he answered question where investigator only advised that defendant was not under arrest at that time, and defendant was released from scene without arrest that night — Questions necessary to administration of field sobriety exercises were not designed to elicit incriminating responses — Motion to suppress denied