Here is the scenario:
A sheriff's deputy conducts a videotape statement on the defendant who is in custody. The deputy at the beginning reads the warnings to comply with 38.22
The defendant confesses to a robbery. Then 2 other police officers walk into the room and start questioning the defendant, the sheriff's deputy, who read the warnings at the beginning, stays in the room. The police officers start to question the defendant and then minutes later re-read the warning, but he skips "if unable to employ a lawyer...." However, the defendant is adamant that he wants to waive his rights and talk and explain. He confesses to capital murder. Is there a problem?

Was the murder a different incident from the robbery?

Yes the robbery was something that happened in the county and the capital murder, which happened in the course of a different robbery happened in the city.

If the videotape was not stopped and then started again, the confession should be admissible. The correct warnings were read to the defendant at the begfinning of the videotape and anything said thereafter, as long as it is voluntary, should be admissible. If the scond warnings were never given, the statement would be admissible, so the fact that the second warnings were not entirely complete should make no difference.

Your situation also sounds a lot like those reviewed in Burruss, 20 S.W.3d at 183.