failed a polygraph does not render the questioning custodial in nature. Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d at 255. Nor did the aforementioned litany of evidence and circumstances obligate the trial court to hold that 1) appellant was physically deprived of his freedom in any significant way, 2) someone told him he could not leave, 3) the officers created an environment that would lead a reasonable person to believe his freedom of movement was significantly restricted, or 4) there existed probable cause to arrest appellant and the officers told him he was not free to leave. Had any of those four scenarios arose then appellant would have been in custody, id., but the evidence before us allowed the trial court legitimately to conclude otherwise. See Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d at 294-95 (<HOLDING>). Legal Sufficiency Finally, appellant claims
holding that accused was not in custody when told he was not under arrest and was free to leave and did in fact freely leave the interview holding in the context of a prosecution for second degree escape that although defendant was not handcuffed he had nonetheless been placed under arrest had had his liberty restrained in that he was not free to leave and at that point the first step in the process of transporting him to the police station had begun consequently the defendants arrest was complete and he was in custody holding that a defendant who was told several times he was not under arrest and who never asked to leave during an interview with investigators was not in custody holding that appellants complaint on appeal that the environment was coercive did not change the fact that he was not in custody when he voluntarily went to the police station was told several times he could leave and did leave after the interrogation holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave