In Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 905, 178 L. Ed. 2d 760 (2011), a capital murder case, the court of criminal appeals held that the prejudice of a recording of a 911 call did not outweigh its probative value because the recording provided a framework within which the particulars of the State's evidence could be developed. Estrada had been charged with the capital murder of a seventeen-year-old girl. Id. at 279. The 911 call recorded the reaction of the victim's family upon finding her lifeless body. Id. at 300. On appeal, Estrada argued that the recording was "charged with emotion" and "grossly prejudicial and inflammatory" because the family members could be heard screaming and weeping. Id. The court of criminal appeals concluded that although the recording did not establish any material fact not otherwise proven within the State's case, it did establish a framework in which the State's evidence could be developed, and it was therefore admissible. Id. The Court cited a United States Supreme Court case that determined a defendant was not in custody when he gave an incriminating statement to the police during questioning at a police station where: (1) the defendant voluntarily went to the police station in response to a request by the police; (2) the police immediately informed the defendant that he was not under arrest; (3) the defendant gave the incriminating statement after a one-half hour interview; (4) the defendant was allowed to leave the police station after the interview. Id. at 294 (examining Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977)). Although the interrogation in Estrada lasted approximately five hours, which was longer than the interrogation in Oregon, the court was "unable to conclude that a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave." Id. at 295.