McCulley v. State, 352 S.W.3d 107

McCulley called police on the night of May 20, 2007; his wife was stabbed and later died, and he was taken to the hospital and then to the police station.
The police conducted a four-and-a-half hour interrogation during which McCulley eventually implicated himself in his wife’s death.
Prior to trial, McCulley moved to suppress his statements; suppression hearing was held.
Detective Brunson testified that warnings under Miranda and Texas article 38.22 were given after about four hours, and McCulley waived his rights and continued talking.
The video showed McCulley appeared not to be in custody at the outset, but the court found custody existed well before warnings were given.
McCulley was convicted of murder, with the jury imputing heat of passion; he was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statement was admissible despite custody and delayed warnings	McCulley	McCulley	Admissible; no deliberate two-step tactic; warnings curative and voluntariness established
Whether McCulley unambiguously invoked his right to terminate the interview	McCulley	Brunson	No unambiguous invocation; interrogation properly continued

Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (custody factors and duration inform custody determination)
Carter v. State, 309 S.W.3d 31 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (two-step Miranda and midstream warnings analyzed together)
Elstad v. United States, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (unwarned confession followed by warned confession may be admissible if voluntary)
Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (midstream warnings cannot salvage pre-warning statements)
Watson v. State, 762 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988) (no formal invocation needed to terminate the interrogation; clarifications may occur)
Martinez v. State, 272 S.W.3d 615 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (midstream warnings analysis; curative measures if deliberate strategy)