Late one night in Plateau City, a young couple in an unusually small foreign car was struck by a speeding BMW as the former crossed an intersection with the light green in their favor. The impact sent the smaller car spinning into one of the large trees near the intersection, and the larger car rolled over several times before coming to rest in a nearby field. Witnesses saw a male get out of the BMW and run away, but could not describe him sufficiently to permit the police to make an arrest. The BMW was not registered with the State Department of Motor Vehicles, and its last registered owner lived in another part of the state and could prove that he had sold it several years ago.

Several weeks later, Jacque, awaiting trial on burglary charges, called the officer who had arrested him to the jail cell where he (Jacque) was incarcerated and asked to speak to a Highway Patrol officer.

When the Highway Patrol officer came to the cell, Jacque told him that he had been the driver of the BMW that had struck the unusually small foreign car. Jacque said that he just wanted to get it off his chest since the female passenger in the small car had been killed in the accident. Jacque told the Highway Patrol officer that he had been drinking heavily before driving the BMW that night.

Jacque is tried for second-degree murder on the theory that his driving of the BMW at high speed while intoxicated showed a wanton disregard for human life sufficient to provide the malice necessary to constitute murder. The prosecution seeks to introduce the statements made by Jacque to the Highway Patrol officer regarding the events of the night of the accident. Jacque’s attorney objects, seeking suppression of the statements. How should the court rule?