1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 124,676

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellant,

v.

G.O.,

Appellee.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which applies to the 

states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, protects the 

right of a person to remain silent, unless the individual chooses to speak in the unfettered 

exercise of the person's own will, and to suffer no penalty for such silence. Under 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), law 

enforcement officers must inform individuals subject to custodial interrogation of this 

and other Fifth Amendment rights. Once the Miranda advisories are communicated, an 

individual may waive the right to remain silent, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, 

knowingly, and intelligently. Courts use this same voluntariness standard to evaluate a 

juvenile's waiver of Miranda rights.

2.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies when the 

interrogation techniques were improper because, in the circumstances of the case, the 

confession is not the product of an individual's free and rational will. Applying this aspect 

of the due process protection requires courts to assess the totality of all an interrogation's

surrounding circumstances—both the characteristics of the individual and the details of 
2

the interrogation—to determine if a confession is a free and unconstrained choice by its 

maker.

3.

Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to a finding that a confession is 

not voluntary. And there must be a link between coercive activity of the State and a 

resulting confession by a defendant.

4.

An individual's mental condition, by itself and apart from its relation to official 

coercion, can never dispose of the inquiry into constitutional voluntariness of a 

confession.

5.

Even where there is a link between police misconduct and a confession, it does not 

automatically follow that there has been a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. Voluntariness must be determined from the totality of the 

circumstances. 

6.

Potential circumstances of the interrogation that may be relevant to whether a 

confession was voluntary include, but are not limited to, the length of the interview; the 

accused's ability to communicate with the outside world; any delay in arraignment; the 

length of custody; the general conditions under which the statements took place; any 

physical or psychological pressure brought to bear on the accused; the officer's fairness 

in conducting the interview, including any promises, inducements, threats, methods, or 

strategies used to compel a response; whether the accused was informed of the right to 

counsel and the right against self-incrimination through the Miranda advisory; and 
3

whether the officer negated or otherwise failed to honor the accused's Fifth Amendment 

rights.

7.

Potential characteristics or circumstances of the accused that may be relevant to a 

determination of whether a confession was voluntary include, but are not limited to, the 

accused's age; maturity; intellect; education; fluency in English; physical, mental, and 

emotional condition; and experience, including experience with law enforcement.

8.

When the protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments apply, the State 

bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an individual 

voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waived rights guaranteed by the Fifth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution and voluntarily—that is, based on the 

person's unfettered will—made a statement. To do so, the State must establish that police 

or other state actors did not intimidate, coerce, deceive, or engage in other misconduct 

that, when considered in the totality of the circumstances, was the motivation for the 

individual to make a statement.

9.

On appeal from a trial judge's determination of whether the State met the burden 

of proving an individual voluntarily confessed, appellate courts apply a mixed standard of 

review. The appellate court reviews the trial judge's findings of fact about the totality of 

circumstances to see whether each is supported by substantial competent evidence. 

Appellate courts assess de novo the trial judge's legal conclusion based on those facts. 

This means the appellate court gives no deference to the trial judge's legal conclusion 

about voluntariness.
4

10.

Neither K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 60-460(f)(2)(B), a hearsay exception, nor the reliability 

standard it incorporates apply when a court decides whether an accused's statements to 

law enforcement officers violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

The purpose of the Due Process Clause is not to exclude presumptively false evidence, 

but to prevent fundamental unfairness in the use of evidence whether true or false.

Holdings to the contrary in State v. McCarther, 197 Kan. 279, 285, 416 P.2d 290 (1966), 

and its progeny are overruled. 

Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed September 23, 

2022. Appeal from Shawnee District Court; NANCY E. PARRISH, judge. Oral argument held January 31, 

2023. Opinion filed March 1, 2024. Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the district court is 

reversed. Judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Natalie Chalmers, assistant solicitor general, argued the cause, and Derek Schmidt, attorney 

general, was with her on the briefs for appellant.

Reid T. Nelson, of Capital and Conflicts Appeals Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs 

for appellee. 

The opinion of the court was delivered by 

LUCKERT, C.J.: G.O., a minor, seeks to prevent the State from using statements he 

made during an interview with a police officer at trial. He argues the officer's coercive 

tactics caused him to involuntarily waive rights protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution. The trial judge agreed with his 

arguments, but a divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the suppression order. 

State v. G.O., No. 124,676, 2022 WL 4391366, at *9 (Kan. App. 2022) (unpublished 

opinion).
5

We affirm the trial judge and reverse the Court of Appeals. In reversing the Court 

of Appeals, we hold the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects 

against an involuntary confession being used as evidence against an accused regardless of 

its reliability. In reaching that holding, we overrule caselaw cited by the Court of Appeals 

majority in holding the record did not support the conclusion that G.O. falsely confessed

and, because his confession was reliable, it should not be suppressed. Rather than 

focusing on the reliability of G.O.'s confession, we examine the coercive nature of the 

police detective's interrogation techniques and the totality of other circumstances

surrounding the interrogation. This review leads us to hold that the interrogation offended 

concepts of due process. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

When G.O. was 16 years old, his younger stepsister, while hospitalized, revealed 

G.O. had molested her. Hospital personnel notified G.O.'s mother, his stepfather, and the

Kansas Department for Children and Families, known as DCF. A DCF representative 

came to G.O.'s home and told G.O.'s mother that G.O. would need to be removed from 

the home by the time G.O.'s stepsister was released from the hospital. The representative 

also suggested individual and family counseling and discussed a long-term goal of 

reintegrating the family. The DCF representative said that all family members would be 

interviewed, and they would be contacted to set up the interviews. 

The next call received by G.O.'s mother was from a Topeka Police Department

detective. G.O.'s mother testified she understood DCF had referred the family for 

interviews, so they cooperated in setting up interviews with the detective. The detective 

interviewed G.O.'s stepsister first and then other members of the family, except G.O. The 
6

detective then told G.O.'s mother he would like to interview G.O. at the police station. He 

assured her that G.O. would not be arrested, only interviewed. 

G.O. had moved in with his father, but G.O.'s mother drove him to the interview at 

the Topeka Police Department. She told G.O., who had no earlier contact with law 

enforcement, that he had to talk to the detective because she "thought we all had to." She 

also told G.O. that "he was going to have to give more details when he talked to" the 

detective than he had when he talked to her about the allegations. No one explained to her 

that G.O. and the other family members could refuse to talk to the police. 

When they arrived at the police station, G.O.'s mother asked if she could sit in on

the interview. The detective told her to wait in the lobby. He then took G.O. to an 

interview room. 

The detective began the interview by saying they would just "hang out" in the 

room and that he would not take long so that G.O. could get back to school. G.O. 

explained he was on his way to the orthodontist to repair a broken bracket and wire on his 

braces. The detective reassured G.O. their talk would not take long. He then thanked G.O.

for coming "so we can get some stuff cleared up. Your Mom probably told you but I'm 

going to tell you again, all right. You are not under arrest." G.O. said he knew. The 

detective added: "You're not going to be under arrest when we're done." G.O. nodded his 

head affirmatively.

The detective then framed the purpose of the meeting: "I'm just trying to clear 

some things up for you and your sister, especially for your sister." G.O. replied, "Yeah,"

and the detective continued: "I mean, you know, I think you know that your sister is 

kinda hurting right now." G.O. responded: "Oh, big time. I want her to be better." The 

detective followed that by saying, "If we can get some of this stuff cleared up and kind of 
7

aired out, I think that's going to help out everybody. Okay?" When G.O. replied, "Yeah,"

the detective added: "And, so, that's what we are here to do, right. This isn't about getting 

people in trouble. This is about trying to fix some things. Okay?" G.O. said, "Okay."

The detective then reiterated, "So we can all move on. Like I said, you are not 

under arrest. You are not going to be under arrest. But we're kinda sitting in this room, 

right? So I'm going to read you your Miranda rights just so you make sure you 

understand them." After reading the rights, the detective verified that G.O. understood, 

and he made sure G.O. meant "yes" when he answered, "mm hmm." The detective did 

not ask if G.O. wanted to waive his rights. 

The detective asked about G.O.'s school and his interests. G.O. reported that he got

good grades, planned to go to college, and hoped to work for Apple. 

The detective then talked about the kind of work the detective did, explaining that 

previously he had investigated everything from shoplifting to homicide. The detective,

who wore dress pants and an open collared shirt rather than a uniform and who did not 

have a visible firearm, added, "Now I work a lot with kids, usually young, young kids.

Okay. The past few weeks I've been kind of talking to your sister, helping, trying to help 

her out."

G.O. responded by repeating, "I just want her to get better." Without further 

prompting, G.O. reported that he thought what happened with his stepsister connected to 

his own experiences when his daycare provider's son molested him. This was a theme 

G.O. would return to at other points during the interview. The detective told G.O. that

"[a] lot of times these things [referring to G.O.'s conduct with his stepsister] happen 

because things have happened to people in the past, right? And those things kind of start 

to manifest themselves."
8

When asked to explain the specifics of what happened to him, G.O. hesitated to 

speak. The detective reiterated that the purpose of the interview was to help G.O.'s 

stepsister. "It's just something that you and I are going to talk about so we can move past 

it to help [your stepsister] out." The detective then said, "[L]ike if we talk here for 45 

minutes and you tell me what happened and I go and I find out that some of those aren't 

true or some of the things you tell me wasn't everything, that's when things start to get out 

of control." 

The detective renewed his request for details about what happened to G.O. as a 

child. After G.O. explained those events, the detective asked what happened between 

G.O. and his stepsister. When G.O. was again reluctant, the detective said that "we might 

as well rip the bandaid off" and then asked G.O. where he would like to start. G.O. said,

"Preferably nowhere but we have to get somewhere."

G.O. eventually described sexual acts with his stepsister, including anal and oral 

sex that occurred about 5 to 10 times. G.O. was often reluctant to speak. The detective 

sometimes would prompt G.O. by telling him what his stepsister had said. G.O. usually 

replied to these comments by saying he did not remember but, if that is what she said, 

then it likely happened. Other times, the detective encouraged G.O. to help his stepsister,

and he added, "This is your time to get it all out on the table." G.O. responded, "I know, 

yeah, I know." The detective also encouraged G.O. to get things "off his chest."

G.O. explained: "All I want to do is I just want to go home. I want to get this done 

and over with. Get everything just cleared up and make sure I can just be less of a 

wreck." G.O. then described frequent anxiety and panic attacks and told the detective he 

was on medication as a result. He added that his mother said DCF wanted him to be in 

therapy and that he was seeing a therapist. 
9

At the end of the interview, which lasted just under an hour, G.O. asked the 

detective if there was anything else he wanted to know. 

Procedural History

More than two years after G.O.'s police interview, the State filed a complaint. The 

complaint charged G.O. with one count of aggravated criminal sodomy against a child

younger than 14 when the offender was younger than 18, K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5504,

and one count of aggravated indecent liberties of a child younger than 14 when the 

offender was younger than 18, K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5506(b)(3)(A). The State also 

moved for prosecution as an adult, which was granted. 

G.O. quickly reached a plea agreement in which the State agreed to dismiss one 

charge and to recommend a departure sentence. G.O. entered a plea. But before 

sentencing, the trial judge allowed him to withdraw his plea after finding that the plea 

was not knowing and voluntary because the sentence recommended by both parties

would have resulted in an illegal sentence. The case returned to the docket and was set 

for a preliminary hearing. After that hearing, the State filed an amended complaint, 

charging G.O. with 60 counts: 6 counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, 51 counts of 

aggravated indecent liberties with a child, 1 count of attempted rape, and 2 counts of 

rape.

G.O. moved to suppress his statement to the detective, contending his waiver of 

rights and his confession were not knowing and voluntary. The trial judge held an 

evidentiary hearing at which the detective and G.O.'s mother testified. The detective's 

testimony reviewed the setting for the interview, the reading of the Miranda warnings 

and G.O.'s response, and the things both he and G.O. said, all of which was consistent 
10

with our summary. G.O.'s mother testified about G.O.'s maturity, mental health, learning 

disabilities that included attention deficit disorder, and schooling. She also explained her 

belief the interview was arranged at DCF's request with the goal of family reintegration. 

In speaking about G.O.'s schooling and learning disabilities, G.O.'s mother 

testified that G.O. had always been less mature than his peers and he had learning 

disabilities. His school made testing accommodations by reading questions to him "so he 

could comprehend them better." When G.O. reached high school, he was making C's and 

D's "at best," except in orchestra, and he had failed several classes. In the school year

during which the interview occurred, he moved to an alternative education program and 

was doing better there with smaller classes and more one-on-one time. His grades 

improved and, as G.O. had reported to the detective, his grades were "good." When asked 

if G.O. was on schedule to graduate, his mother responded, "No. He would not have 

graduated on time, if at all, had he not been moved up there." When informed that G.O. 

had told the detective he planned to go to college and hoped to work for Apple, his 

mother said, G.O. was "obsessed with all things Apple" and working for Apple meant "at 

the Apple store one day, not for the Apple Incorporated." She added there was no plan for 

G.O. to go to college because "he's not college material. And that's okay." Asked to 

characterize G.O.'s comments to the detective, she explained they were "[m]ore like . . . 

when you ask a kid[,] . . . what do you want to do when you grow up?"

The trial judge also viewed the video of the interview. She commented that she 

had watched it before in an earlier court proceeding.

After hearing the evidence and the arguments of the attorneys, the trial judge 

granted the motion to suppress. The judge did not issue a written memorandum order but 

orally made factual findings and discussed the applicable legal standards. 
11

The judge began by commenting that "this is a close question" as to whether 

G.O.'s comments were voluntary. She then observed that the circumstances are 

"strikingly similar" to those presented in State v. R.W., 58 Kan. App. 2d 135, 464 P.3d 27 

(2020). She discussed the framework the R.W. court had followed in its analysis—factors 

the Kansas Supreme Court has listed to help weigh relevant circumstances when 

determining if a confession is voluntary. The judge found there were "certainly a number 

of parallels between" R.W.'s interview and G.O.'s when these factors are examined. 

The judge focused on the fairness of the interview, which drove R.W.'s outcome 

and, in the judge's view, the outcome of G.O.'s motion. The judge stressed the detective's

constant reassurances to G.O. that the interview's purpose was to help G.O.'s stepsister 

and everyone, not to get people in trouble:

"I think the thing that may really tip the balance in this Court's opinion is why [G.O.]

believed he was at the law enforcement center to talk with [the detective]. And that was 

pretty clear in the interview . . . because of what [the detective] told him, that they were 

there to talk about what would help his step sister, . . . and that nobody was in trouble. 

And so that seemed to be the purpose of his discussion."

The judge also found it significant that G.O.'s mother had told him that "he had to 

talk with the detective. They were all trying to cooperate for the benefit of" G.O.'s 

stepsister. The judge added that based on "how [G.O.] was providing information, it was 

clear that it was to help" his stepsister. 

The judge then responded to some arguments G.O.'s attorney had presented about 

alleged procedural defects in the interview process. She noted the detective did not allow 

G.O.'s mother into the interview room, but the law did not require allowing a parent to 

attend the interview of someone of G.O.'s age. She also agreed with the factual basis of 

another of G.O.'s arguments, finding that the detective did not specifically ask G.O. to 
12

waive his Miranda rights or otherwise verify the waiver. But she concluded that these 

failures made no difference in the legal analysis because the law does not require those 

formalities. 

Finally, the judge ruled that G.O.'s confession was not voluntary and summarized 

the reasons for the decision: 

"As I said, I think it's a very close question. But based on the issue with his education—

the fact that he was in therapy and had had anxiety attacks—the fact that he had actually 

no prior experience with law enforcement, and that he believed that he was there to help 

his step sister, . . . who had been in placement and had some very difficult issues—I am 

going to find the statement was involuntarily made by [G.O.]."

The State brought an interlocutory appeal in the Court of Appeals under K.S.A. 

2022 Supp. 22-3603. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge, 

holding that G.O.'s confession was voluntary. State v. G.O., No. 124,676, 2022 WL 

4391366, at *9 (Kan. App. 2022) (unpublished opinion). One Court of Appeals judge

dissented, saying she would conclude that the totality of the circumstances supports the 

holding that G.O.'s confession was involuntary. 2022 WL 4391366, at *9 (Hurst, J., 

dissenting). 

G.O. petitioned this court for review of the Court of Appeals decision, and the 

State filed a conditional cross-petition. We granted both petitions. We have jurisdiction 

under K.S.A. 20-3018(b) (allowing jurisdiction over petitions for review of Court of 

Appeals decisions); K.S.A. 60-2101(b) (Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review Court 

of Appeals decisions upon petition for review). 
13

ANALYSIS

G.O. asks us to reverse the Court of Appeals majority and adopt the reasoning of 

the Court of Appeals dissent and the trial judge. He contends the trial judge correctly 

concluded his confession was involuntary. He argues the detective's conduct was 

misleading in three ways. First, the detective repeatedly made false reassurances that 

G.O. would not be arrested or be in any trouble if he revealed everything. Second, the 

detective never disclosed he was investigating a crime or that he was investigating G.O.

And, third, the detective hid the true purpose of the interview by convincing G.O. that it 

was therapeutic—that is, that it was to help G.O.'s stepsister and everybody, including 

G.O.

The State does not argue that Fifth Amendment and Due Process Clause 

protections do not apply. Instead, it contends G.O. freely and voluntarily waived his Fifth 

Amendment and due process rights and voluntarily confessed. It also distinguishes R.W., 

58 Kan. App. 2d 135, the decision relied on by G.O., the trial judge, and the dissenting 

Court of Appeals judge. In addition, in the State's conditional cross-petition, it makes two 

arguments about circumstances considered by the trial judge. First, it contends G.O.'s 

struggles in school are irrelevant because nothing in the record suggests he struggled to 

understand questions during the interview or that the police officer exploited any 

educational difficulties. Second, it argues that giving Miranda warnings should be 

considered a factor undermining any claim of coercion. 

The ultimate questions before us are whether G.O. knowingly, intelligently, and 

voluntarily waived his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and whether 

the detective violated G.O.'s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by coercing him

to involuntarily make incriminating statements.
14

1. General Overview of Applicable Law

We separate these issues because G.O. mainly bases his arguments on the Fifth 

Amendment's self-incrimination privilege, while the Court of Appeals discussed the Due 

Process Clause. Although there are doctrinal and substantive differences in the rights 

granted under the two provisions, the same legal test of voluntariness ultimately applies 

to a determination of whether a confession was obtained in violation of an accused's 

rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Dickerson v. United States, 530 

U.S. 428, 433-34, 120 S. Ct. 2326, 147 L. Ed. 2d 405 (2000). To explain, we look to the 

applicable caselaw applying both the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of 

the Fourteenth Amendment. 

The Fifth Amendment, which applies to the states through the Fourteenth 

Amendment, protects "'the right of a person to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in 

the unfettered exercise of his own will, and to suffer no penalty . . . for such silence.'"

State v. Brown, 286 Kan. 170, 172-73, 182 P.3d 1205 (2008) (citing and quoting Malloy 

v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6, 8, 84 S. Ct. 1489, 12 L. Ed. 2d 653 [1964]). In Miranda v. 

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), the United States 

Supreme Court imposed a procedural safeguard, requiring law enforcement officers to 

inform individuals subject to custodial interrogation of their Fifth Amendment rights to 

remain silent and to have an attorney. Once the Miranda advisories are communicated, 

"[t]he defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made 

voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently." 384 U.S. at 444. Courts use "voluntariness" as

shorthand for this test. 

In Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725, 99 S. Ct. 2560, 61 L. Ed. 2d 197 (1979), 

the United States Supreme Court adopted the same voluntariness waiver standard—

voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently—to evaluate a juvenile's waiver of Miranda
15

rights. This voluntariness test thus applies to our consideration of G.O.'s motion to 

suppress his confession.

G.O. asserted both substantive and procedural Fifth Amendment rights in 

arguments to the trial judge. But on appeal G.O. did not raise the alleged procedural 

violations—that the detective did not verify G.O.'s waiver of rights or protect G.O., who 

was a minor, by involving his mother in the waiver. His abandonment of these arguments 

on appeal means those arguments are not preserved for our review. See State v. Dooley, 

308 Kan. 641, 651, 423 P.3d 469 (2018). That abandonment does not forfeit G.O.'s 

ability to assert a violation of his substantive Fifth Amendment rights and to seek 

suppression of his confession, however. Even if Miranda advisories are read and an

individual waives the rights, a confession can still be involuntary. See State v. Palacio, 

309 Kan. 1075, 1087, 442 P.3d 466 (2019) (citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 

433 n.20, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317 [1984]) (recognizing availability of remedy 

but observing such instances are rare). 

The Fifth Amendment test for voluntariness substantially tracks the voluntariness 

test applied under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Colorado v. 

Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 164, 169-70, 107 S. Ct. 515, 93 L. Ed. 2d 473 (1986). The Court 

of Appeals framed its analysis under the Due Process Clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause states that no state shall 

"deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Due process 

requires that confessions be voluntary. Under the Due Process Clause, "certain 

interrogation techniques, either in isolation or as applied to the unique characteristics of a 

particular suspect, are so offensive to a civilized system of justice that they must be 

condemned." Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 109, 106 S. Ct. 445, 88 L. Ed. 2d 405 

(1985). This concept of a due process protection against involuntary confessions flows 
16

from a "set of values reflecting society's deeply felt belief that the criminal law cannot be 

used as an instrument of unfairness, and that the possibility of unfair and even brutal 

police tactics poses a real and serious threat to civilized notions of justice." Schneckloth 

v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973). 

Fenton noted two paths for applying due process protection against involuntary 

confessions: (1) Those that are inherently coercive and a per se violation of the Due 

Process Clause and (2) those where a state actor uses interrogation techniques that

because of the unique circumstances of the suspect are coercive. 474 U.S. at 109.

The first path relates to interrogation techniques that in isolation are inherently 

offensive to a civilized system of justice. 474 U.S. at 109. Cases finding a per se violation

of due process are rare, but the Court listed some illustrative cases. In them, police 

officers used coercive techniques that included extreme psychological pressure or brutal 

beatings and other physical harm. 474 U.S. at 109; see, e.g., Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 

U.S. 143, 153-54, 64 S. Ct. 921, 88 L. Ed. 1192 (1944) (confession involuntary where the 

confessant was psychologically pressured by being held for 36 hours incommunicado, 

without sleep or rest, and was subject to uninterrupted questioning by "relays of officers, 

experienced investigators, and highly trained lawyers"); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 

278, 56 S. Ct. 461, 80 L. Ed. 682 (1936) (beating and other forms of physical and 

psychological torture). G.O. has not argued the characteristics of his interrogation were 

this type of inherently coercive action. 

That does not foreclose suppression, however, because under the second path 

discussed in Fenton the Due Process Clause "applies equally when the interrogation 

techniques were improper only because, in the particular circumstances of the case, the 

confession is unlikely to have been the product of a free and rational will." 474 U.S. at

110. Applying this aspect of the due process protection requires courts to "assess[] the 
17

totality of all the surrounding circumstances—both the characteristics of the accused and 

the details of the interrogation"—to determine whether a confession is a "'free and 

unconstrained choice by its maker[.] If it is, if he has willed to confess, it may be used 

against him. If it is not, if his will has been overborne and his capacity for selfdetermination critically impaired, the use of his confession offends due process.' [Citation 

omitted.]" Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 225-26. 

In applying this totality-of-the-circumstances examination, "coercive police 

activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not 'voluntary.'"

Connelly, 479 U.S. at 167. And there must be a "link between coercive activity of the 

State, on the one hand, and a resulting confession by a defendant, on the other." 479 U.S. 

at 165. The Connelly Court observed that the "sole concern . . . on which Miranda was 

based, is governmental coercion. . . . Indeed, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not 

concerned 'with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources 

other than official coercion.' [Citation omitted.]" 479 U.S. at 170. The flip side of these 

conclusions is that an accused's susceptibility to coercion does not alone give rise to a due 

process violation. 479 U.S. at 165. The facts and holding of Connelly illustrate this point. 

In Connelly, the United States Supreme Court reviewed a Colorado Supreme 

Court decision that upheld the suppression of Francis Barry Connelly's statement. 

Connelly spontaneously gave the confession after voluntarily approaching a police officer 

and saying that he murdered someone and wanted to talk about it. The officer advised 

Connelly of his Miranda rights, which Connelly waived because a voice in his head told 

him he should confess. The Colorado Supreme Court held that Connelly's mental state 

interfered with his "rational intellect" and his "free will" and "the absence of police 

coercion or duress does not foreclose a finding of involuntariness. One's capacity for 

rational judgment and free choice may be overborne as much by certain forms of severe 
18

mental illness as by external pressure." People v. Connelly, 702 P.2d 722, 728, 729 (Colo. 

1985), rev'd 479 U.S. 157, 107 S. Ct. 515, 93 L. Ed. 2d 473 (1986). 

The United States Supreme Court explicitly rejected this holding and the Colorado 

court's exclusive reliance on an accused's mental state as the constitutional basis for

suppressing a confession. Connelly, 479 U.S. at 167. The Court did so after summarizing

its caselaw and noting that "cases demonstrate that while mental condition is surely 

relevant to an individual's susceptibility to police coercion, mere examination of the 

confessant's state of mind can never conclude the due process inquiry." 479 U.S. at 165. 

At the same time, it recognized such a holding might be demanded by state rules of 

evidence. 479 U.S. at 159, 167. It also acknowledged "that as interrogators have turned to 

more subtle forms of psychological persuasion, courts have found the mental condition of 

the defendant a more significant factor in the 'voluntariness' calculus. [Citation omitted.]"

479 U.S. at 164. But "this fact does not justify a conclusion that a defendant's mental 

condition, by itself and apart from its relation to official coercion, should ever dispose of 

the inquiry into constitutional 'voluntariness.'" 479 U.S. at 164. Instead, an accused's 

characteristics are relevant to proving the State's coercive conduct induced the 

confession. 479 U.S. at 164-65, 170-71.

The individual's susceptibility to misconduct remains relevant. In a footnote, the 

Connelly Court noted that "[e]ven where there is causal connection between police 

misconduct and a defendant's confession, it does not automatically follow that there has 

been a violation of the Due Process Clause." 479 U.S. at 164 n.2. For support, the Court 

cited Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739, 89 S. Ct. 1420, 22 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1969).

There, while interviewing a homicide suspect, police misrepresented the 

statements of the defendant's cousin who had participated in the crime. The police falsely 

stated that the cousin had confessed. In addition, they "sympathetically suggested that the 
19

victim had started a fight by making homosexual advances." 394 U.S. at 738. The Court

examined the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interview. It first mentioned

that the defendant had received "partial warnings" of his constitutional rights (he had 

been told he had a right to an attorney and that anything he said could be used against 

him). It then also observed that the questioning was of short duration and the defendant 

was mature and of normal intelligence. The Court concluded the misrepresentation 

"while relevant, [was] insufficient in our view to make this otherwise voluntary 

confession inadmissible." 394 U.S. at 739. The Court added that "[t]hese cases must be 

decided by viewing the 'totality of the circumstances.'" 394 U.S. at 739. 

This same totality-of-the-circumstances consideration applies whether the accused 

is an adult or a minor. But, when the accused is a minor, like G.O., unique characteristics 

may exist. For example, the Fare Court cautioned judges "to take into account those 

special concerns that are present when young persons, often with limited experience and 

education and with immature judgment, are involved." 442 U.S. at 725. The Court later 

further explained that judges considering Fifth Amendment issues should factor in that 

"children 'generally are less mature and responsible than adults,' . . . 'often lack the 

experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be 

detrimental to them,' [and] 'are more vulnerable or susceptible to . . . outside pressures'

than adults." J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 272-73, 131 S. Ct. 2394, 180 L. Ed. 

2d 310 (2011). See also State v. Vonachen, 312 Kan. 451, 464, 476 P.3d 774 (2020)

(judges "'must exercise the greatest care in assessing whether the juvenile's inculpatory 

statement to law enforcement was voluntary'"). 

These concerns relating to minors fit into the overall consideration of the totality 

of circumstances of a police interview of a criminal suspect. Whether dealing with a 

minor or adult, no list can be comprehensive because the circumstances of each case 

vary. Even so, this court has identified factors that might be relevant to judicial 
20

consideration of voluntariness. In doing so, we have emphasized that a court should not 

merely tally the factors. Nor do the factors necessarily deserve equal weight. Instead, "'a 

single factor or a combination of factors considered together may inevitably lead to a

conclusion that under the totality of circumstances a suspect's will was overborne and the 

confession was not therefore a free and voluntary act. [Citation omitted.]'" State v. Sharp, 

289 Kan. 72, 81, 210 P.3d 590 (2009). In other words, a voluntariness outcome does not 

"turn[] on the presence or absence of a single controlling criterion" but "reflect[s] a

careful scrutiny of all the surrounding circumstances." Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 226.

As we have noted, the trial judge considered the circumstances of G.O.'s 

interrogation and identified several of the factors this court has outlined for consideration 

when conducting a totality-of-circumstances review. When dealing with minors, we have 

urged—but not required—judges to consider a minor's age, the length of questioning, the 

minor's education, the minor's experience with law enforcement, and the minor's mental

state. E.g., State v. Davis, 268 Kan. 661, 674, 998 P.2d 1127 (2000) (citing seminal case 

listing factors, State v. Young, 220 Kan. 541, 546-47, 552 P.2d 905 [1976]). We have also 

developed a list of characteristics for judges to consider when conducting a totality-ofthe-circumstances review in any case—juvenile or adult. These factors include the 

accused's mental condition, the manner and duration of interview, the accused's ability to 

communicate with the outside world, the accused's age and intellect, the officer's fairness 

in conducting the interview, and the accused's fluency in English. State v. Gilliland, 294 

Kan. 519, 529, 276 P.3d 165 (2012). Here, the trial judge referred to both the juvenile and 

the general sets of factors. 

In the State's conditional cross-petition for review, it repeats an argument it made 

to the Court of Appeals. It argues our list should include the factor of whether Miranda 

warnings were given. We have described these lists as nonexclusive, so any relevant 

factor may—and should—be considered. See, e.g., Gilliland, 294 Kan. at 528-29. 
21

Knowledge that one possesses constitutional rights when confronted with the accusation 

of criminal conduct—the very purpose of the Miranda advisory—is relevant. And the 

United States Supreme Court and other appellate courts commonly list knowledge of the 

criminal accusations and one's rights when listing circumstances for consideration under 

the Due Process Clause. E.g., Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227 (noting relevance of "the 

failure of the police to advise the accused of his rights"); Frazier, 394 U.S. at 739 (noting 

defendant "received partial warnings of his constitutional rights" and observing that "this 

is, of course, a circumstance quite relevant to a finding of voluntariness," citing Davis v. 

North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 740-41, 86 S. Ct. 1761, 16 L. Ed. 2d 895 [1966]). And, 

under Miranda's procedural protections of Fifth Amendment rights, it can be a 

determinative factor in custodial interrogation cases. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. 

We thus revise our factors to explicitly include consideration of whether Miranda 

warnings were given. But we also note that courts likewise consider whether a police 

officer negates, contradicts, or fails to honor the Miranda advisory. See, e.g., Doody v. 

Schriro, 548 F.3d 847, 869 (9th Cir. 2008), aff'd on reh'g en banc 596 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 

2010), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Ryan v. Doody, 562 U.S. 956, 131 S. Ct. 456, 

178 L. Ed. 2d 282 (2010); Ross v. State, 45 So. 3d 403, 433-34 (Fla. 2010). 

In addition to adding consideration of the giving and honoring of the Miranda 

advisory, we update the list with some other factors illustrated by caselaw. We have split 

the factors into two categories: (1) those relating to the details of the interrogation and 

(2) those relating to the accused. Judges should continue to consider the totality of the 

circumstances—that is, the circumstances in both categories plus any other relevant 

circumstances—when deciding whether a state actor's coercive actions induced the 

confession. Consistent with prior decisions, trial judges need not address every factor, 

but we urge them to articulate the factors that influence their findings about whether a 
22

state actor engaged in coercive conduct and whether that coercive activity induced the 

confession. 

Potential details of the interrogation that may be relevant include: the length of 

the interview; the accused's ability to communicate with the outside world; any delay in 

arraignment; the length of custody; the general conditions under which the statement 

took place; any physical or psychological pressure brought to bear on the accused; the 

officer's fairness in conducting the interview, including any promises of benefit, 

inducements, threats, methods, or strategies used to coerce or compel a response;

whether an officer informed the accused of the right to counsel and right against selfincrimination through the Miranda advisory; and whether the officer negated or 

otherwise failed to honor the accused's Fifth Amendment rights.

Potential characteristics of the accused that may be relevant when determining 

whether the officer's conduct resulted in an involuntary waiver of constitutional rights 

include the accused's age; maturity; intellect; education; fluency in English; physical, 

mental, and emotional condition; and experience, including experience with law 

enforcement.

These—and other factors arising from facts of a case—may be relevant no matter 

whether the accused is a juvenile or an adult, making separate lists unnecessary. But in 

cases involving a juvenile, we continue to urge judges to exercise great care in weighing 

these factors to decide whether the juvenile's inculpatory statement to law enforcement 

was voluntary. 

Before applying these considerations to the trial judge's ruling suppressing G.O.'s 

confession, we add two other points to our overview of applicable law: the burden of 

proof and the appellate standard of review. 
23

2. Burden of Proof and Standard of Review

When the protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments apply, the State 

bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an individual 

voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waived rights guaranteed by the Fifth 

Amendment and voluntarily—that is based on the person's unfettered will—made a 

statement. Brown, 286 Kan. at 172. A trial judge examining whether the prosecutor met 

this burden must first ask whether police or other state actors overreached—that is, did 

they intimidate, coerce, deceive, or engage in other misconduct? If the answer is no, the 

police did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment or 

the Due Process Clause. If the answer is that the State actor overreached, then the judge 

must ask whether there the facts establish the "essential link between coercive activity of 

the State, on the one hand, and a resulting confession by a defendant, on the other." 

Connelly, 479 U.S. at 165.

After a trial court applies that test and makes a voluntariness determination and a 

party appeals that decision, Kansas appellate courts apply a standard of review that 

divides the voluntariness determination into questions of fact and questions of law. 

Vonachen, 312 Kan. at 463; Sharp, 289 Kan. at 88-89. This mixed standard of review

derives from the standard used by the United States Supreme Court when making 

voluntariness determinations about confessions. See, e.g., Sharp, 289 Kan. at 88-89 

(citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 287, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302 

[1991]). The Supreme Court's rationale for adopting the mixed question standard of 

review deserves some discussion because it elucidates how appellate courts should apply 

the standard and how trial courts should determine if the State has met its burden of 

persuasion. 
24

The United States Supreme Court in Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 81 S. 

Ct. 1860, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1037 (1961), identified a review process involving "at the least,"

three phases. 367 U.S. at 603."First, there is the business of finding the crude historical 

facts, the external, 'phenomenological' occurrences and events surrounding the 

confession." 367 U.S. at 603. This totality-of-the-circumstances phase is normally 

determined by the trier of fact with the caveat that the findings must be supported by 

evidence. 367 U.S. at 603. Turning to the second and third phases—the determination of 

how the accused reacted to the external facts and the legal significance of the reaction—

the Court applied a de novo review. 

The Court, in explaining why it gave less deference to the trial court when 

considering the second and third phases, acknowledged the factual aspects of discerning 

an accused's mental state. But it explained the analysis of mental state in the context of 

voluntariness could not be siloed as a pure question of fact because the two, "although 

distinct as a matter of abstract analysis, become in practical operation inextricably 

interwoven." 367 U.S. at 604. In part, this is "because the apprehension of mental states is 

almost invariably a matter of induction, more or less imprecise, and the margin of error 

which is thus introduced into the finding of 'fact' must be accounted for in the formulation 

and application of the 'rule' designed to cope with such classes of facts." 367 U.S. at 604.

In other words, as the Court explained, "the mental state of involuntariness upon which 

the due process question turns can never be affirmatively established other than 

circumstantially—that is, by inference; and it cannot be competent to the trier of fact to 

preclude our review simply by declining to draw inferences which the historical facts 

compel." 367 U.S. at 605. 

Those considerations led the Court to conduct an independent or de novo review 

of the voluntariness of the confession because "[n]o more restricted scope of review 

would suffice adequately to protect federal constitutional rights." 367 U.S. at 605. That 
25

said, the Court softened its de novo review by indicating it would give "[g]reat weight . . . 

to the inferences which are drawn by the state courts." 367 U.S. at 605. But those 

inferences would be tested through consideration of prior decisions because "it is only by 

a close, relevant comparison of situations that standards which are solid and effectively 

enforceable—not doctrinaire or abstract—can be evolved." 367 U.S. at 622. 

Almost a quarter of a century after Culombe and fifty years after the United States 

Supreme Court had first adopted the mixed question of fact and law standard of review, it 

was asked to reshape the appellate standard for voluntariness determinations in habeas 

corpus appeals. The Court declined to do so in Fenton, 474 U.S. 104. 474 U.S. at 109-18. 

The decision to retain the standard was partially guided by a federal habeas corpus statute 

not applicable here, but the Court also discussed why the standard applied in direct 

appeals. First, the Court cited the doctrine of stare decisis, noting the long-standing use of 

the standard. Second, it concluded "the nature of the inquiry itself lends support to the 

conclusion that 'voluntariness' is a legal question meriting independent consideration."

474 U.S. at 115. Third, and arguably most significantly, it referred to the "uniquely legal 

dimension" of the right to due process and its constitutional roots. 474 U.S. at 115.

In discussing the legal dimension of a voluntariness determination, the Court 

acknowledged, as the concurring opinion here suggests, the factual aspects of considering 

the circumstances of the confession and the characteristics of the suspect. But the Court 

cited back to the discussion in Culombe, 367 U.S. at 603, 605, and noted that "[a]lthough 

sometimes framed as an issue of 'psychological fact,' the dispositive question of the 

voluntariness of a confession has always had a uniquely legal dimension. [Citations 

omitted.]" 474 U.S. at 115-16. 

The Court went on to explain that the legal dimension of the right arises because 

the "locus of the right" is the Due Process Clause under which "the admissibility of a 
26

confession turns as much on whether the techniques for extracting the statements, as 

applied to this suspect, are compatible with a system that presumes innocence and assures 

that a conviction will not be secured by inquisitorial means as on whether the defendant's 

will was in fact overborne." 474 U.S. at 116. Protection of this constitutional right 

required the Court to view the voluntariness inquiry as a question of law. The Court 

concluded "[t]his hybrid quality of the voluntariness inquiry, subsuming, as it does, a 

'complex of values,' [citation omitted] itself militates against treating the question as one 

of simple historical fact" that would warrant deference to the trial judge's decision. 474 

U.S. at 116. In other words, as one commentator observed, "No amount of metaphysics 

will enable a court to discover when a will is overborne. A court can reach this judgment 

only by analyzing the established facts and comparing them to earlier determinations of 

when a will was overborne." Comment, The Standard of Review for the Voluntariness of 

a Confession on Direct Appeal in Federal Court, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1311, 1333 (1996).

Culombe and Fenton are consistent with the standard of review this court has 

applied and that we reaffirm today. We thus review the trial judge's findings about 

historical facts regarding the circumstances of the confession as issues of fact. See Sharp, 

289 Kan. at 88-89 (citing Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 287). This means the judge's findings 

about these factors must be supported by substantial competent evidence or, in other 

words, evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion. State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453, 461, 345 P.3d 258 (2015). In assessing 

whether substantial competent evidence supports the factual underpinnings of a district 

court's decision, an appellate court does not reweigh the evidence, assess witness 

credibility, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. Vonachen, 312 Kan. at 464. This means that 

appellate courts disregard any conflicting evidence or other inferences that might be 

drawn from the evidence. Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 1196, 221 P.3d 1130 

(2009).
27

We then review the question of whether the state actor overreached, the 

determination of how the accused reacted to the external facts, and the legal significance 

of the reaction as issues of law. We examine the totality of circumstances and assess de 

novo the trial judge's legal conclusion based on those facts. This means we give no 

deference to the trial judge's legal conclusion that G.O. did not voluntarily confess. 

Vonachen, 312 Kan. at 464.

3. Application to Trial Judge's Ruling

With those considerations in mind, we turn to an analysis of the trial judge's 

ruling. The judge relied heavily on State v. R.W., 58 Kan. App. 2d 135. Like this case, the 

trial judge in R.W. suppressed a juvenile's confession after finding it involuntary, in large 

part because of the juvenile's lack of understanding of the interview's purpose. 

R.W. was a 17-year-old high school student when interviewed by police officers. 

He had mental health issues and was coping with sadness and depression due to the 

recent passing of his father, whose body R.W. had found under tragic circumstances. 

R.W. had bonded with a school resource officer (SRO), who had recently lost a son. 

When police investigated a complaint by R.W.'s girlfriend that he had raped her, two 

detectives contacted the SRO and had him introduce them to R.W.

The officers were introduced by first names only. They explained to R.W. that 

they wanted to talk to him "'about some stuff that occurred.'" They assured him he was 

not under arrest, but they took him to a police facility where they interviewed him for 

four hours. They told him they would take him back to school "'when we're done 

talking.'" 58 Kan. App. 2d at 137. R.W. was not allowed to call his mother. 
28

Like the detective who interviewed G.O., the officers never told R.W. that he was 

the subject of a criminal investigation, and they obfuscated their role as criminal 

investigators. On the ride to the police facility, R.W. explained he had bonded with the 

SRO because they had both lost a family member. After expressing sympathy, one of the 

officers told R.W. that they were '"kind of like'" an SRO and that their jobs were to "'talk 

to kids, primarily.'" They explained their jobs were different from an SRO because they 

were not assigned to a school and an SRO did not have as "'much time to devote to 

longer-term . . . type of incidents with kids or crises that they're going through.'" 58 Kan. 

App. 2d at 137-38.

The officers read R.W. his Miranda rights but, like the detective's comments to 

G.O., they said things that downplayed the significance of the Miranda advisory. They 

portrayed it as "'a formality'" they needed to do only because they were in a police 

station. 58 Kan. App. 2d at 138.

Like the detective who interviewed G.O., the officers did not reveal the true 

purpose of the interview. Instead, they said, "'[W]e're just trying to understand,'" and they 

told him they would "'figure it out together.'" They responded to R.W.'s reluctance to talk 

by saying things like "'we've heard everything before'" and telling him "'it's going to be 

okay.'" They also said things like "'part of growing up[] is making mistakes and figuring 

out'" things. They urged him to tell them about his relationship with his girlfriend so he 

could "'clear his conscience,'" '"heal,'" "'leave it all there,'" "'walk away,'" "'move 

forward,'" and "'have a successful future.'" They added that his former girlfriend was also 

"'going to heal, and she's going to be able to move past this . . . and move on with her life, 

too.'" 58 Kan. App. 2d at 139-41.

The trial judge in R.W. found the officers' omissions and obfuscations 

determinative of the issue of voluntariness because of the significant potential to confuse 
29

a juvenile about the purpose and gravity of the situation. The trial judge found the 

officers' frequent reassurances to R.W. gave him the impression that the interview was 

like a "'therapy session'" rather than a criminal investigation. 58 Kan. App. 2d at 148. As 

the trial judge here found, G.O.'s interview is "parallel" in tenor and purported purpose. 

The trial judge in R.W. found the way the interview was conducted to be the main 

reason for a finding of involuntariness. But the judge also found other factors played into 

this—R.W.'s lack of experience with police, other than the SRO whom he considered a 

friend; R.W.'s mental state following the death of his father; and R.W.'s isolation in the 

interview room. 

The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that substantial competent evidence 

supported the trial judge's factual findings. 58 Kan. App. 2d at 145. The Court of Appeals 

also held that the trial judge applied the correct legal standard and affirmed the 

suppression. This court denied review. 

4. Totality of Circumstances Around G.O.'s Interview

Here, the Court of Appeals majority and the State distinguish R.W. from G.O.'s 

circumstances, noting three distinguishing facts. They first observe that the interview in 

R.W. was four hours compared to G.O.'s one hour interview. Second, the police 

interviewing R.W. offered assurances that no one was in trouble more often than did the 

detective who interviewed G.O. And, third, G.O. more readily volunteered information 

than did R.W. While these are valid distinctions, the similarities the trial judge found are 

striking. The police officers' statements in both interviews were confusing. Given the 

inexperience and lack of maturity of the teens, the confusing statements provided 

misleading information about the purpose and gravity of the interviews. The officers in 

both situations gave the impression that the interview was a therapy session rather than 
30

part of a criminal investigation. Like, R.W., G.O. had no experience with law 

enforcement and was suffering from mental health issues—in G.O.'s case, he was in 

therapy, being medicated for anxiety and, in his words, he was a "wreck." Nevertheless, 

the G.O. Court of Appeals majority discussed reasons they would not give the same 

weight to these matters as had the panel deciding R.W., including that substantial 

competent evidence does not support the trial judge's findings.

Before discussing those conclusions, we observe that in briefs before the Court of 

Appeals the parties presented no arguments about the trial judge's findings of fact. 

Instead, the State conceded that substantial competent evidence supported the existence 

of the four factors about G.O.'s characteristics cited by the trial judge. These factors were 

G.O.'s educational problems, his anxiety attacks and ongoing therapy, his lack of 

experience with law enforcement, and his belief that he was talking to the police to help 

his stepsister and was not in trouble. But it argued the judge erred in its legal 

determination that the facts required suppression.

The Court of Appeals majority categorized the trial judge's findings in a different 

manner. It listed five findings it found supported by substantial competent evidence. 

Those were that the interrogation lasted just under an hour, G.O. was just under 17 years 

of age, he exhibited a good vocabulary during the interview, his mother drove him to the 

police station and waited there to drive him home, and the detective read the Miranda 

rights to G.O. 2022 WL 4391366, at *5. The G.O. majority concluded substantial 

competent evidence did not support the judge's findings about G.O.'s education struggles. 

2022 WL 4391366, at *6-7. After discussing those findings, the majority found fault with 

the judge's reliance on R.W. and with the judge's legal conclusion that G.O.'s inculpatory

statement was involuntary. 2022 WL 4391366, at *8-9. The majority also concluded the 

detective made no misrepresentations and otherwise did not exceed the fair boundaries of 

police conduct allowed during interrogations. See 2022 WL 4391366, at *8 ("The record 
31

shows [the detective] made no threats of harm or promises of benefit. Nor does it show 

[the detective's] undue influence over G.O."). It also impliedly found the trial judge's 

causation ruling—that G.O. spoke openly because he believed the purpose of the 

interview was to help his stepsister and that no one would be in trouble—was 

unsupported. Instead, it concluded that G.O. spoke because he "wanted to clear the air 

and get something off his chest. G.O. was compelled to confess not by any officer's 

overreaching acts, but by his own guilty conscience." 2022 WL 4391366, at *9.

The dissenting Court of Appeals judge disagreed with these conclusions, however, 

noting support in the record for the trial judge's findings. See 2022 WL 4391366, at *12 

("The district court determined that [the detective's] misleading conduct tipped the scale 

in favor of finding G.O.'s statements involuntary. . . . [The detective's] misleading and 

inaccurate statements, which can be categorized as unfair interview tactics, weigh heavily 

in favor of finding G.O.'s statements involuntary, even without consideration of G.O.'s 

education, mental condition, and inexperience with law enforcement.").

We turn to the factors discussed by the trial judge and the Court of Appeals. We 

begin with the state actor's conduct—here the detective's comments.

4.1 Circumstances of the Interview

The trial judge found that the detective's conduct was the "thing that may really tip 

the balance" because the detective led G.O. to believe he was there to "talk about what 

would help his step sister . . . and that nobody was in trouble." We find substantial 

competent evidence supports the trial judge's findings on these points. 

• The Detective's Statements—Substantial Competent Evidence Review
32

As for the promises of leniency, the detective at first told G.O. that he would not 

be "under arrest when we're done." The Court of Appeals correctly noted that G.O. was 

not arrested then or for about two more years, meaning the detective did not mislead G.O. 

But the majority did not directly discuss the detective's comment just before he read the 

Miranda rights that "you are not under arrest. You are not going to be under arrest."

Unlike the statement the majority highlights about not being under arrest at the end of the 

interview, this representation had no temporal limitation, and it came within a few words 

of the detective saying, "This isn't about getting people in trouble." Rather, as the 

detective repeatedly stated, they were there as the judge found "to talk about what would 

help his step sister."

Although the Court of Appeals did not directly discuss these representations, it 

dealt with the comments indirectly. It dismissed all alleged misrepresentations about 

leniency because Kansas caselaw requires that a police officer's promise of leniency 

make an individual's statement unreliable, and it concluded the record does not show that 

G.O. lied. For support, it cited State v. Garcia, which held:

"In order to render a confession involuntary as a product of a promise of some benefit to 

the accused, including leniency, the promise must concern action to be taken by a public 

official; it must be such that it would likely cause the accused to make a false statement 

to obtain the benefit of the promise; and it must be made by a person whom the accused 

reasonably believed had the power or authority to execute it." 297 Kan. 182, 196, 

301 P.3d 658 (2013).

As the Court of Appeals pointed out, under this standard, G.O.'s argument fails 

because nothing in the record suggests the detective's representations led to a false 

confession. And we acknowledge that Garcia is not our only decision to incorporate this 

reliability standard as a test of voluntariness. The reliability requirement appears in 
33

decisions as long ago as 1966. See State v. McCarther, 197 Kan. 279, 285, 416 P.2d 290 

(1966). 

Despite this history, we now recognize that reliability when applying the Fifth 

Amendment and the Due Process Clause is contrary to decisions of the United States 

Supreme Court. The misunderstanding arises from reliance on common-law history and 

on statutory rules of evidence that test reliability when deciding whether to admit 

hearsay. 

The United States Supreme Court explained this history and reliance. It noted that 

common-law considerations mainly concerned the reliability of confessions, 

"recogniz[ing] that coerced confessions are inherently untrustworthy." Dickerson, 530 

U.S. at 433. This recognition evolved into rules of evidence that allowed judges to admit 

only trustworthy out-of-court statements under hearsay exceptions. 530 U.S. at 433. Like

the federal rules of evidence and other states' rules, Kansas' hearsay statute, K.S.A. 2022 

Supp. 60-460(f)(2)(B), includes a reliability test, reflected in the requirement the State's 

action "must be such that it would likely cause the accused to make a false statement to 

obtain the benefit of the promise." Garcia, 297 Kan. at 196. 

The early case of McCarther cites this statutory hearsay exception. 197 Kan. at

285 (quoting 1966 version of statutory hearsay exception, which differs from current 

statute only by using "he" where current statute uses "the accused"). McCarther and its 

progeny conflated the hearsay statute and the voluntariness test under the Due Process 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, McCarther did not discuss the United 

States Supreme Court's holding five years earlier that use of an evidentiary standard "that 

[takes] into account the circumstance of probable truth or falsity . . . is not a permissible 

standard under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Rogers v. 

Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 543-44, 81 S. Ct. 735, 5 L. Ed. 2d 760 (1961). Instead, "[t]he 
34

aim of the requirement of due process is not to exclude presumptively false evidence, but 

to prevent fundamental unfairness in the use of evidence whether true or false." Lisenba

v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236, 62 S. Ct. 280, 86 L. Ed. 166 (1941). 

The Lisenba Court explained that states were free to apply evidentiary rules testing 

whether coercion created a risk of a false confession. "But the adoption of the rule of [the 

state's] choice cannot foreclose inquiry as to whether, in a given case, the application of 

that rule works a deprivation of the prisoner's life or liberty without due process of law."

314 U.S. at 236. 

Bound as we are by this holding, we overrule Garcia, McCarther, and other cases 

that apply K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 60-460(f)(2)(B) for any purpose other than admission of 

hearsay evidence. This precedent was originally erroneous, and more harm than good 

would result from continuing the error. See State v. Larsen, 317 Kan. 552, 559, 533 P.3d 

302 (2023) (discussing exception to stare decisis doctrine when precedent originally 

erroneous). Neither K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 60-460(f)(2)(B) nor the standard in it apply to an 

analysis under the Fifth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. 

This change in how we apply rules about promises by police officers undermines 

the Court of Appeals' rationale for rejecting G.O.'s arguments. We are left with 

statements by the detective to G.O. that he was "not under arrest. You are not going to be 

under arrest. . . . This isn't about getting people in trouble."

In addition, as the trial judge also found, throughout the interview the detective 

emphasized the goal was to help G.O.'s stepsister. The detective began the interview by 

explaining that while he had investigated crimes, "Now I work a lot with kids, usually 

young, young kids. Okay. The past few weeks I've been kind of talking to your sister, 
35

helping, trying to help her out." When G.O. would express reluctance, the detective 

would return to the theme of helping G.O.'s stepsister. He continued to build on this after 

G.O., early in the interview, said, "I just want her to get better." The judge found the

detective's statements misled G.O. to believe that was the purpose of the interview. 

As we have discussed, a law enforcement officer's false promise, lie, or other 

deception can negate the Miranda advisory and provide the "necessary predicate to the 

finding that a confession is not 'voluntary' within the meaning of the Due Process Clause 

of the Fourteenth Amendment." Connelly, 479 U.S. at 167; see Schriro, 548 F.3d at 869; 

Ross, 45 So. 3d at 433-34. Here, the detective not only downplayed the Miranda 

warnings, but he also encouraged a full confession if G.O. wanted to avoid prosecution. 

The detective also misrepresented the true purpose of the interview by repeatedly telling 

G.O. the purpose of the interview was not about getting anyone in trouble. The trial 

court's findings on these points are supported by substantial competent evidence. 

• Detective's Statements—Issue of Law 

In turn, these findings significantly influence our de novo review. The detective's 

comments to G.O. are remarkably like ones made by the officers in R.W. There the Court 

of Appeals concluded the officers' statements "had the significant potential to confuse a 

juvenile about the purpose and the gravity of his 'talk' with the officers." 58 Kan. App. 2d 

at 148. And "the potential for confusion was exacerbated by the fact that the officers did 

not disclose the true purpose of their 'talk.'" 58 Kan. App. 2d at 149. These conclusions 

apply equally to the circumstances of G.O.'s interview. 

The State argues this potential confusion was offset by the fact the detective read 

G.O. the Miranda advisory. While, as the State argues, the fact an individual received the 

Miranda advisories is a circumstance supporting a holding that a statement was 
36

voluntarily made, courts have held that downplaying or contradicting the Miranda 

warnings can negate that support. See Schriro, 548 F.3d at 869; Ross, 45 So. 3d at 433-

34. The trial judge concluded that G.O. believed he was being interviewed because "they 

were there to talk about what would help his step sister . . . and that nobody was in 

trouble." The concept that the interview would not be used against G.O. diverges from

the Miranda warning which gave notice that what G.O. said could be used against him. 

Another significant factor arises from the various statements in which the 

detective suggested—and arguably promised—that G.O. would not be arrested. While 

that comment alone did not suggest G.O.'s answers would not be used against him for any 

purpose, the detective also said that the purpose of the interview was not to get anyone in 

trouble. This could be objectively understood as a broader promise that G.O. would not 

be harmed by any statements he made. These representations—and arguable promises—

were not true. They presented him with the option of helping his stepsister, and the false 

hope that he was progressing toward reintegrating his family, returning to live with his 

mother, and relieving his anxiety. And he could gain these benefits without the threat of 

being arrested or otherwise being in trouble. But now the State seeks to use these 

statements against him.

These statements are like ones considered in Garcia, 297 Kan. 182. There, using a 

totality-of-the-circumstances approach, we held that a police officer's misrepresentation, 

delivered through proxy, that Miguel A. Garcia would not be booked for murder was a 

significant factor weighing toward a conclusion that a confession was involuntary. 297 

Kan. at 197. Other courts have also held that promises of nonprosecution were a 

significant factor weighing toward holding that a confession was involuntary. E.g.,

United States v. Lall, 607 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. Rogers, 906 F.2d 

189 (5th Cir. 1990); State v. Tamerius, 234 Neb. 121, 449 N.W.2d 535 (1989).
37

In addition, the circumstances of the dual administrative and criminal proceedings 

surrounding G.O.'s stepsister had the potential to cause confusion. Under similar 

circumstances, we held inculpatory statements were involuntary in State v. Morton, 286 

Kan. 632, 186 P.3d 785 (2008). There, a college-educated adult who had experience with 

law enforcement involuntarily gave a statement. Karin J. Morton was the subject of an 

administrative investigation into whether she bought federal surplus property for private 

use. Local police investigated, and during the investigation Morton had an attorney. 

Later, a General Service Administration investigator contacted Morton for an interview. 

He did not make it clear that the interview was part of a criminal investigation and in fact 

made reassurances that it was not "that kind" of interview and encouraged Morton not to 

bring her attorney. 286 Kan. at 653-54. While all other circumstances of the interview 

suggested Morton's statement was voluntarily made, the investigator's misleading 

comments conveying the interview was not part of a criminal investigation led this court 

to hold that her statements were not the product of her free and independent will. 

Likewise, the confusion caused by the detective's comments to G.O. also weigh 

toward a determination of involuntariness. While the detective did not discourage G.O. 

from bringing an attorney, the risk of misleading a juvenile with no experience with law 

enforcement is even greater than what occurred in Morton. As held in R.W., "statements 

made to juveniles that are likely to mislead them regarding the nature and legal 

consequences of an interrogation have the potential to render a confession involuntary."

58 Kan. App. 2d at 149. Even G.O.'s mother believed they had to visit with officials and 

thought the efforts related to a plan to reunite the family and were designed to help G.O.'s 

stepsister. 

The detective's misleading statements thus provide the predicate police 

overreaching. We turn to examining other factors about the interview to determine if
38

those misleading statements support the conclusion that the detective's misleading 

statements induced G.O.'s confession. 

• Other Factors About the Interview

We agree with the Court of Appeals that some factors relating to the nature of the 

interview point to voluntariness. The interview was comparatively short—just under an 

hour where, for example, R.W.'s was four hours long. Also, the tone of the interview was 

friendly, with no raised voices and no threats. 

G.O. never asked to speak to his mother, nor did he express concern when the 

detective told her she could not go with G.O. into the interview room. As the State argues 

and the Court of Appeals majority concluded, her presence and her knowledge of G.O.'s 

whereabouts distinguishes R.W. But under the circumstances, her presence added to the 

deceptive nature of the interview. She became a proxy for the detective, confirming his 

representation that G.O. was not under arrest and that G.O. needed to speak freely and 

offer details of what had happened. Her introduction of the detective, like the SRO's 

introduction of the police in R.W., and her facilitation of the interview, while not direct 

conduct by a state actor, aided and validated the detective's representations that he was 

just trying to help and had no motive to get anyone in trouble. 

Neither the parties nor the Court of Appeals discuss other factors about the nature 

of the interview, and we see no other relevant circumstance. 

In sum, we find substantial competent evidence to support the trial judge's factual 

finding that a significant factor weighing toward involuntariness was G.O.'s belief that 

the purpose of the interview was to help his stepsister and was not to get anyone in 

trouble. 
39

4.2 G.O.'s Characteristics 

The trial judge found four characteristics that contributed to a conclusion G.O.'s 

statement was involuntary: his issues with education, his being in therapy, his anxiety 

diagnosis, and his lack of experience with law enforcement. The Court of Appeals 

questioned the legal significance of these factors, but it also held that the trial judge's 

findings of fact about G.O.'s educational issues lacked support from substantial 

competent evidence. 

• G.O.'s Educational Issues

Beginning with the substantial competent evidence prong of our standard of 

review, the Court of Appeals and, before us, the parties spend considerable energy 

debating the meaning of the trial judge's findings about G.O.'s education and his progress 

toward graduation. Our review of the record reveals that G.O.'s statement and his 

mother's testimony supply substantial competent evidence supporting the trial judge's 

findings that G.O. had struggled and failed many classes. While his new program offered 

an opportunity to catch up and graduate on time, there is nothing in the record stating he 

had caught up on his credit at the time of his interview. 

Turning to the second prong and the trial judge's legal conclusion, the Court of 

Appeals concluded "the record shows no link between G.O.'s mild learning disability and 

his oral comprehension or his ability to respond during the interview." The majority then 

noted that the video of the interview showed that G.O.'s responses to the detective "were 

swift, responsive, and showed no confusion or lack of understanding." 2022 WL 

4391366, at *6. The State, in its conditional cross-petition for review, makes the same 
40

point. It also contends the detective did not know of G.O.'s educational issues, so could 

not have used them to coerce G.O. to talk. 

These are valid points. But it does not appear that the trial judge weighed this 

circumstance because she found that G.O. did not understand questions. Rather, the judge 

seemed to have considered the factor in the context of the overall struggles G.O. faced—

the things that made him a wreck in his eyes—rather than as affecting his ability to 

understand and process what the detective said to him. Overall, the trial judge concluded 

G.O. was susceptible to the detective's overreaching because of the struggles he had 

faced, struggles dominated by his emotional and mental health issues. 

• G.O.'s Anxiety Attacks and Ongoing Therapy

The Court of Appeals likewise noted that G.O.'s mental health problems did not 

manifest during the interview and no evidence otherwise "show[ed] that any of G.O.'s 

mental conditions affected his free will at the time he was interviewed." The majority 

continued by noting that G.O. had not testified, "so we lack his subjective view of that 

matter." Nor, the majority added, did a doctor testify. 2022 WL 4391366, at *7. 

In this passage, the majority was distinguishing State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18, 

38, 106 P.3d 39 (2005), a case in which an order of suppression was "heavily influenced 

by evidence of the defendant's low intellectual functioning and his susceptibility to being 

overcome by anxiety." G.O., 2022 WL 4391366, at *7. In that case a doctor had testified, 

although the defendant did not. The distinctions drawn by the Court of Appeals are thus 

valid. But the Court of Appeals went beyond making distinctions to suggest that G.O. had 

the burden to prove his mental health affected his waiver of his right to remain silent. 

This ignores the burden of proof that applies here, which is that it is the State's burden to 
41

show by a preponderance of the evidence that G.O. confessed voluntarily. Vonachen, 312 

Kan. at 464.

The trial judge here made no explicit findings about whether the anxiety 

manifested during the interview. But the judge found that G.O. had experienced anxiety 

attacks; had been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, anxiety, and depression; more 

than likely was on medication at the time of the interview, although G.O.'s mother could 

not remember what the medication was; and was in bi-weekly therapy. The judge then 

concluded there were "certainly a number of parallels" between this case and R.W., 

58 Kan. App. 2d 135. 

In R.W., the only physical sign of anxiety mentioned by the trial judge was that 

R.W. "'"nervously pick[ed] at his nails at several points."'" Even so, the trial judge found 

that R.W.'s mental state "left him vulnerable." 58 Kan. App. 2d at 150. The Court of 

Appeals agreed, noting the evidence suggested "mental vulnerability and, therefore, a 

higher potential for coercion." 58 Kan. App. 2d at 151. R.W. illustrates that mental health 

issues need not manifest during the interview before they can be a factor to be weighed in 

the totality of the circumstances. While the trial judge here did not make the same explicit 

findings as did the judge in R.W., she noted the similarity in the circumstances in R.W. 

with those here.

We also note that the trial judge had the opportunity to watch G.O. in person 

during multiple hearings, including a plea colloquy. She thus had the advantage of 

in-person observation during several hearings to compare G.O.'s demeanor during the 

interview. We will not substitute our judgment for her assessment that G.O.'s mental and 

emotional health issues evidenced a vulnerability to coercion.
42

We conclude substantial competent evidence supports the factual findings made 

by the trial judge about G.O.'s anxiety, other diagnoses, medications, and therapy and her 

legal conclusion—implied from her reliance on R.W.—that these increased G.O.'s 

vulnerability to any coercion. 

• G.O.'s Lack of Experience with Law Enforcement

The next factor the trial judge cited as influencing her decision was G.O.'s lack of 

exposure to law enforcement. On this point, the parties' arguments before us concern the 

legal import of this lack of experience, not its factual basis. We find evidence in the 

record to support the trial judge's finding of fact on this point. 

The Court of Appeals majority discounts G.O.'s lack of experience as important, 

contrasting his lack of experience to R.W.'s trust in the SRO that was ostensibly 

transferred to the officers who conducted the interview. But, as we have discussed, G.O.'s 

mother supplied the connection between G.O. and the detective, and she told G.O. he had 

to talk to the detective. Her trust and understanding of the purpose of the interview—that 

is, to help her stepdaughter—if nothing else, illustrates how someone more mature 

misunderstood the situation. G.O.'s lack of contrary experience weighs into his 

vulnerability to the detective's misleading comments about the purpose of the interview. 

4.3 Detective's Actions Induced G.O.'s Confession

Finally, we consider the trial judge's determination that the detective's actions 

induced G.O.'s confession. The Court of Appeals discounted the trial judge's holding that 

the detective's misleading conduct was causally related to G.O.'s confession. G.O. argues 

the Court of Appeals strayed from the standard of review by reweighing the facts. 
43

The Court of Appeals found G.O.'s confession was motivated by his guilty 

conscience and he "wanted to clear the air and get something off his chest." 2022 WL 

4391366, at *9. This inference has some support in the record. But substantial competent 

evidence supports the trial judge's finding that G.O. attended the interview and talked to 

the detective to help his stepsister, and that he believed in doing so, "nobody was in 

trouble." He told the detective he preferred not to talk "but we have to get somewhere,"

and other statements he made suggested that his motivation to start talking was to help 

his sister and to allow for family reintegration. G.O.'s subjective belief is not enough to 

find the detective's comments coercive. But objectively the combination of the detective's 

comments are circumstances weighing toward a determination that the detective

deceptively led G.O. to believe he was not in trouble, would not be arrested, and was just 

there to help his stepsister. 

The totality of the circumstances also weighs toward concluding G.O. 

involuntarily waived his Fifth Amendment rights and involuntarily made a confession.

We have circumstances in which the detective negated the Miranda advisory and 

represented that G.O. was not in trouble and would not be arrested and general confusion 

by G.O. and his mother about the distinction between a criminal investigation and the 

ongoing administrative process to reintegrate the family. Substantial competent evidence 

also supported the trial judge's findings that G.O.'s emotional state, age, and lack of 

experience with law enforcement made him vulnerable to being misled. Applying these 

facts de novo, we conclude the detective's statements negated the Miranda warnings and 

misled G.O. into believing the interview's purpose was to help his stepsister. Inducing 

these false beliefs was coercive and led to G.O. confessing against his expressed free will 

not to talk about what had happened. Given G.O.'s general anxiety and other 

circumstances, through this overreaching, the detective overbore G.O.'s will and, through 

his statements that the interview would help G.O.'s stepsister, provided the primary 
44

motivation for G.O. to give a statement he explicitly said he preferred not to make. G.O.'s 

statements thus were not the product of his free and independent will. 

De Novo Determination

As we have noted, under earlier decisions of this court and of the United States 

Supreme Court, "the admissibility of a confession turns as much on whether the 

techniques for extracting the statements, as applied to this suspect, are compatible with a 

system that presumes innocence and assures that a conviction will not be secured by 

inquisitorial means as on whether the defendant's will was in fact overborne." Fenton, 

474 U.S. at 116; Vonachen, 312 Kan. at 464; Sharp, 289 Kan. at 88-89. 

This brings us to the second prong of our review at which we conduct a de novo 

determination of whether the detective's overreaching was compatible with due process 

considerations. We conclude it was not. Comparing the facts here with other cases 

holding a defendant had involuntarily confessed illustrates how this overreaching was 

incompatible with constitutional principles. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in holding G.O.'s statements were 

involuntary and thus must be suppressed. We affirm the trial judge's conclusion that the 

State did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that G.O.'s confession was 

voluntary.

Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the district court is reversed. 

Judgment of the district court is affirmed.
45

* * *

STEGALL, J., concurring: I concur in the reasoning and result of today's decision 

given that it is dictated by United States Supreme Court precedent. But the longer I sit on 

this court, the more convinced I become that we must not situate our decisions in the 

shadows of obscurantist reasoning or amid the distraction of legal pieties. Both are at 

play here. The Supreme Court's "totality of the circumstances" test by which it conjures a 

question of "law" out of the factual circumstances of "voluntariness" obscures what is 

happening—and the popular piety that appellate courts do not find facts or reweigh 

evidence simultaneously draws attention from the real action. 

Indeed, as the Supreme Court makes clear, the crucial question of a defendant's 

mental state when a confession is made is a question of fact. The "mental state of 

involuntariness upon which the due process question turns can never be affirmatively 

established other than circumstantially—that is, by inference." Culombe v. Connecticut, 

367 U.S. 568, 605, 81 S. Ct. 1860, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1037 (1961). Circumstantial evidence and 

the drawing of inferences are quintessential fact-finding tools. And yet the Court insists 

the question is one of law, not fact. Why? Simply put, it is because appellate courts owe 

no deference to a lower court's determination of legal questions—and the Court wants to 

play in the voluntariness sandbox. 

There may be good reasons for this. But they can never be explored or plainly 

stated if appellate courts insist on pretending they are not doing what they plainly are 

doing. Judges have "convinced many people—including themselves—that they use 

esoteric materials and techniques to build selflessly an edifice of doctrines unmarred" by 

things like reweighing evidence in a value-laden way. Posner, How Judges Think 3 

(2008). But a realistic and pragmatic court can and should do better.
46

A clear explanation of today's decision (which reflects Supreme Court precedent) 

might go something like this. Our Constitution does not tolerate coerced confessions. So 

to be admissible in court, a confession must have been voluntarily made. Voluntariness is 

an elusive fact and involves the inner workings of a person's mind and will. Since the best 

we can do is to look at a defendant's inner state from the outside, it is important for a factfinder to carefully consider all the circumstances and draw reasonable inferences from 

those circumstances about what must have been happening inside the defendant's mind. 

While appellate courts will not normally reweigh the evidence or second guess the trial 

court fact-finder, we will make an exception in this instance. Indeed, on review, appellate 

judges must put themselves in the position of fact-finders with respect to this crucial 

question of voluntariness—that is, we must reweigh the circumstances and inferences 

carefully. We do this because preventing coerced confessions is so fundamental to our 

constitutional structure that we cannot leave its enforcement to an inconsistent quilted 

patchwork of ad hoc decisions made by trial judges. When we allow appellate courts to 

be the ultimate arbiters of the fact of voluntariness, our caselaw will establish over time 

the broad circumstances and inferences to be considered in future cases, all of which will 

better guide law enforcement and achieve more uniform results.