But "[a]n officer is only required to give Miranda warnings when a defendant is both (1) in custody and (2) subject to interrogation." Scanlandv. State, 139 N.E.3d 237, 242 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019).
[23] We note Casillas was not advised of his Miranda rights prior to the request to enter, but there is no indication he should have been read his rights pursuant to Miranda because he was not in custody or subject to interrogation at that point. SeeScanland v. State , 139 N.E.3d 237, 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) ("An officer is only required to give Miranda warnings when a defendant is both (1) in custody and (2) subject to interrogation.").
To that end, the Miranda warnings requirement is triggered when a person is both (1) in custody and (2) subject to interrogation. Scanland v. State , 139 N.E.3d 237, 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Statements obtained from the custodial interrogation of a suspect who has not been advised of his Miranda rights are generally inadmissible.
"A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and we will reverse the trial court's ruling only when the trial court abuses that discretion." Scanland v. State, 139 N.E.3d 237, 242 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision is against the facts and circumstances before it or if the court misinterprets the law.
A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and thus we review an evidentiary ruling for an abuse of that discretion. Scanland v. State , 139 N.E.3d 237, 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or if the court misinterprets the law.