door unlocked and no guard posted. Throughout the interview he was given several bathroom breaks and was offered food and drink. Defendant was cooperative and allowed investigators to examine his shoes. Although detectives encouraged defendant to tell the truth, they did not raise their voices and they neither threatened defendant nor wheedled statements from him with promises. Defendant was never misled, deceived, or confronted with false evidence. Once defendant implicated himself by acknowledging his direct participation in the killing, the interview ended and defendant was given his Miranda rights. Under these circumstances, we agree with the trial court that defendant was not formally arrested or otherwise subjected 1997); State v. Lane, 334 N.C. 148, 154, 431 S.E.2d 7, 10 (1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Phipps, 331 N.C. 427, 443-45, 418
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 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 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 a defendant who voluntarily rode to the station with officers in a police car waited in a lobby with unlocked external doors and was told more than once he was not under arrest was not 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