Nathan Allen King v. State, 12-16-00195-CR

Nathan Allen King was stopped by Officer Samford after a lit cigarette was observed leaving his vehicle; Samford smelled alcohol and began a DWI investigation later assumed by DPS Trooper Phillips.
Samford asked King to exit the vehicle, performed an HGN test, and (per Samford) detected signs of intoxication; King initially said he had two beers, then later said six or seven; he refused a breath test.
Samford did not place King in handcuffs, did not arrest him, and there was no video recording of the encounter; Samford did not recall whether he told King he believed King was intoxicated.
King was later arrested by Trooper Phillips; at trial the State introduced King’s statements to Samford and the jury found King guilty of DWI.
King objected under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22, arguing the statements were the result of custodial interrogation and therefore inadmissible without compliance with the recording/warning requirements.
The trial court held a suppression hearing, found King was not in custody during his statements to Samford and that the statements were voluntary; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether King’s statements to Samford were inadmissible under Art. 38.22 as resulting from custodial interrogation	King: Samford’s statement that his eyes showed intoxication manifested probable cause and turned the encounter into custody, triggering Art. 38.22 protections	State: Samford did not arrest King, did not restrain him to degree of formal arrest, and any asserted statement about intoxication was not established; statements were voluntary and non-custodial	Court: Affirmed — totality of circumstances support trial court’s finding King was not in custody when he spoke, so Art. 38.22 did not apply and statements were admissible

Martin v. State, 173 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (uphold trial ruling if correct under any applicable theory)
Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (will not reverse evidentiary ruling unless outside zone of reasonable disagreement)
Hubert v. State, 312 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings)
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (same)
Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (deference to trial court on historical facts; de novo review of legal application)
Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (trial court is exclusive trier of fact on suppression)
Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (custody defined by whether a reasonable person would feel freedom restrained to arrest degree)
Ross v. State, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial court may believe or disbelieve any witness testimony)