Police officers went to appellant’s house to investigate a claim that appellant had inappropriately touched two girls. The officer asked him questions about the girls’ claim, but did not arrest him, or restrict his movement in any way. The officer asked appellant to go to the police station with him, and appellant agreed. He was not handcuffed in the police vehicle. The officer did not Mirandize appellant, and on appeal, he argued that the statements made during that questioning should have been suppressed. The appellate court here rejected that claim, finding that the interrogation was not custodial. The trial court did not err when it instructed the jury with CALJIC 10.42 on the meaning of “duress” as used in the definition of committing forcible lewd acts upon a child. Appellant’s response to the officers initial statement that two girls had accused of molesting them, “Where’s the evidence?” was an adoptive admission, and the jury should have been instructed accordingly. However, there was no reasonable possibility that the failure to give an instruction regarding adoptive admissions affected the verdict.