McDaniel v. State

Summary

The court affirmed McDaniel’s convictions, holding that his statements during the custodial interview were admissible because his remarks about remaining silent and obtaining counsel were ambiguous and equivocal in context, and he continued speaking before receiving and agreeing to renewed warnings. The court also rejected his challenge to the State’s use of portions of the interview because the trial court made no definitive evidentiary ruling and McDaniel failed to establish plain error or prejudice. No separate opinions were filed.