The Supreme Court examined whether a trial court abused its discretion in denying a defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who expressed concerns about the not guilty by reason of insanity defense. Because the trial court sufficiently rehabilitated the prospective juror through individual questioning during voir dire, the Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s challenge for cause. Additionally, the Court addressed whether a member of the military was in custody for purposes of Miranda when he was interviewed by the civilian police after being restrained and transported to the interview by the military police. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court held that defendant was not in custody during the pre-advisement portion of his interview. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.