Docket No . 104095.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT

OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

THE PEOPLE OF

THE STATE OF

ILLINO IS, Appel

lant, v. PAMELA

SLATER, Appel

lee.
Opinion filed March 20, 2008.

JUSTICE FRE EMAN deliver ed t he judg ment o f the cou rt, with op inion. Chi ef Jus t ice T homas and Justice s Fitz ger ald, Kilbride, G ar man, Karmeier , a nd Bu rk e co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion.

OPINION

Fo llowing a b en ch t r ial i n t he cir cu it co ur t o f Will C o un t y, de f en da nt, Pame la Slater, wa s co nv icte d o f one co unt of p er mitt ing t he sexu al ab us e of a c hild (720 ILCS 150/5.1 (West 2002)) and was sentenced to four y

ears ’ i nc arce rati on. Th e app el l ate court re ver sed defendant’s con

vi cti on a nd rem an de d th e c au se f or a n ewtri al . No. 3–04–0640 (unpubl

ished order under Suprem e Cour t Rule 23) . We granted th e S tate’s pe titi

on f or le av e to appea

l (210 Il l . 2d R. 3 15), and, for the reaso ns t hat follow , w e r ever se t he judg ment o f the appe ll ate cou rt.-2- BACK GROUND Defend ant wa s ch arge d w ith pr ed at o r y cr iminal s ex ua l as sa ult of
a chi ld (720 ILC S 5 /1 2–1 4. 1( a) (1 ) ( West 200 2) ) a nd wit h per mitt ing t he sexu al abus e o f a chi ld (7 20 I LCS 150 /5 .1 (Wes t 200 2) ). The Sta te al leged that the chi

ld v ictim in this case wasde fen

dant’s 11- yea r
- o ldda ug ht er , K. S. Amo ng t he se ve r al p r et r ial mo t io ns f ile d b y defend ant was a m

ot ion to determi

ne h er fi tness to stan d t rial. T he court -appointed

ps y ch ologist, Dr . R andi Zo ot , fo und d efenda nt t o be

“ al er t, ori en ted to pe rs on , pl ac e d ate and si tuati on, an

d coopera tiv e,” and that she had

a ver bal IQ of 8 1, a pe rfo rmance IQ of 7 0, and a fu llsc ale IQ o f

74 . A l th ou gh de fendant ’s “o ver all I.Q . p laces he r in t he bor der line

ran ge of intellect ual funct ioning and he r ve rba l ab il itie s are lo w avera ge ,” Dr. Z oot con

cl uded th at def

en da nt d i d “not su f f er f rom a men t al d iso r de rt ha t int er fe r es wit h he rab ilit y to unde rst and t he courtpro ceedings, the role of the cour t par ticipan ts o r f rom co op er at ing wit h her at t or ney in her de fense. ” T he parties stipul ated t ha t Dr

. Zo o t fo un d d efe nd an t fit t o st an d t r ial. Defend ant al so m

oved to suppre ss ora

l and vi deotaped incul patory sta tem en ts ma de by her on Jul

y 17, 2003, at the Wi l lCou nt y Child Adv ocacy Cen ter (Center) and at t he Cri mi nal Investigations

Off ic e at t he Will

Co unt y sheriff’s de par t ment ( she r if f ’s depa rtme nt). Def en dant al leged that the stat em

ent ma de at the Center occurred wh ile she was

in custody and wi

thout her re ceiving wa rnings p ur sua nt to Mira nda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct

. 1602 ( 1966)

. In

addi ti on , de f en da nt al leg ed th at th e s tate m en ts were involu ntary beca use she is i

ntell ectuall y l im ited an d they were ma de
a fter she w as t hre at ened wit h t he los s o f her c hildren. Defend ant further al leged that the sub seq uen t statem en t given b y he r a t t he sheriff ’s depa rtme nt wa s a d

i rect pro d uct of t he unlaw ful st at ement obtained at the Center, t hat the tain t could not be removed, an d, t heref ore, that t hi s statemen

t was inadm

is si bl e as wel l. Def enda n t theref ore requested t hat t he cou rt s up pres s a

ll in cu l pa tory sta tem en ts ma de by her on Jul

y 17, 2003. At t he ens uing su ppr essio n hear ing, t he evide nce r eve a led that authorities

b ec am e a wa re th at K.S. h ad

pos si b l y b een su b j ec ted to sexual abuse t hro ugh a t ip called into t he DCFS hot li ne by defendant’s fri end. DCFS i

nve stigator Maurice John so n fo llo we d u p o n t his al leg ati on by sp ea ki ng to t he t ip ster, who stat ed that a man nam ed-3- Bria n Deck was li

vi ng wi th defen dant’s f am il y, an d that he a

nd K .S. were engaged i

n a sex ual rel ati onshi p. J ohnson

performed a crim

in al back gr ou nd ch

ec k on defen dant and h

erhusb and an

d found that they had no crim in al hi story; however , he d id discover that at least three ot her pr io r reports had be en made t o D CFS a bou t t he family, a nd defendant’s chi

ldren had b een rem

oved. Johnson then

vi si ted defendant’s home , where he spoke to her, her h us ba nd an

d K.S. Defe n dant and h

er husb and were told by J ohnson that Deck ha

d t o leave the pre m i se s a nd cou l d not retu

rn orhave a ny

contact wi

th K.S.
un t il DCFS determ

ine d tha t it wa s sa

f e f or h im t o do so . D efenda nt agreedand si

gned a wri

tt en saf ety pl an, whi ch allo we d K

. S. t o r ema in in the ho me pend ing t he o ut co me of t he invest igat ion. The testim

ony a t t he suppress ion h

earin g reveal edth at once a reportof abus e i s recei

ved , it is standard procedure to arrange a “vic t im se nsit ive interview” (V SI ) o f the minor a t t he Ce nt er . T he Center mak es t he ar r an ge men t s fo rt he in te rview , a nd befo re t he in terview can take place, a parent must gr ant pe rm i ss i on to s pe ak wi th t he ch il d. The V SI for K.S . t oo k plac e o n July 17, 200 3, and defend ant an d h er da ug ht er ar r ive d a t t he Ce nt er at 1 p

. m. The y were dr iven to t hat loca t ion by Dec k, who pla nne d t o wa it in t he ca run t il he was cal

led to p ic k them up a

t t he com ple tion of the i

ntervi ew. Acco rd ing t o p ro t oc ol, defend a nt was inter viewed by Mary Jane Plut h, a C en

ter soci al wor ke r, to ob tai n pe rm i ss i on to speak wi th K.S. Defend ant gave h

er consent and, i

n the course of doi

ng so, deni

ed that anyabuseh ad

occur re d. P l uth t hen se par at ely inter viewed K.S ., who al so deni ed that any

abuse h ad taken pl ace. The Sta te pres en ted the testi m ony of D etecti

ve John Ruetti ger, a me mb erof t he Will

Co unt y sheriff’s de par t ment, who st at ed t hat he and hi s partner, Det ec t ive Richar d Ack er so n, w er e pr ese nt at t he Center at t he t ime defenda nt and he r d aug ht er arrived. T he sheriff ’s department ha

d received a report from DCFS all egi ng that K.S. was t he vi ctim of sex ual abuse, opened a c

rim in al in ves ti gati on file, a nd
as si gn ed h im an d h i s p ar tn er to at t end the VSI. Ruett ige r stated t hat at that t ime defend ant “was no t t he fo cus of o ur invest igat ion, ” and that it was n

ot unusual

that DCFS in

ves tigat o rJo hns o n a nd Will County Assi stant Stat e’s A

tt orney He

idi Brin k were al so present at the C en ter.-4- Af ter Pluth spoke with de

fen dant and K .S., Reut tiger stated that he, Acke rso n, P lut h, Johnson a nd Bri nk m et to discuss the i

nterviews, and concl uded that both defen

dant and K .S. we re being un t r ut hfu l. Ruettiger deci ded that h e and Ack erson woul

d spea k f urther wi th K.S, and info r med de fe nd an t t ha t t he y w ere do ing so because “we didn’t believe th at [ K .S. ] w asb ei n g c om pl etel y h on es t wi

th us.” Ruettiger stated that he spoke to defen dant in a sm al l meeting ro om at t he Cen ter, whi ch con tai ned a de sk an d a f ewchai rs . DCFS inv

es ti ga tor Joh n son was alrea dy in the r oo m with d efenda nt when he and A ck ers on entered, and the detectives t he n le ft de fen da nt in the room wi th John son to speak wi

th K.S. Ruettiger then questioned K.S., and sh e adm itted that she a nd Deck we r e h av ing se xu al in terco urse. K.S. stat ed that Deck was a family fr ien d w ho wa s in his t hirt ies a nd w ho had lived o n an d o ff at her famil y’s home fo r se ver al mont hs. Aft er K.S . mad e t his admission, Ruettiger and A ckerson returnedto speak wi th defen dant, who was st ill in the int er view r oo m with Jo hnso n. R uet t iger st at ed t hat t he purpo se of thi s second i ntervi ew wi th de f en da nt wa s tw of

old: to inf orm de f en da nt of what K .S. ha d ju st t o ld t he m an d t o find o ut if defendant knew t hat K.S . a nd De ck w er e having s ex in her ho me
. Ruettiger deni ed that the purpose o f this di scu ssio n was t o g ain a
co nf es si on from defen dant; rather, he stated that he in tended to do
som e “f act fi ndi ng” with respect to t he a

dm i ssi on m ade by K.S. Ruettiger testifi edthat t hi s second i

ntervi ew with de

fen dant la sted between 10 and 15 mi

nutes. Defendant was n ot given Miranda warnin gs, and sh e was not handcuf

fed duri n g th ei r c on v er sa

ti on . B oth Ruettiger and A ckerson were i

n plai n cl ot hes an d had w eap ons that
were holstered. When

Ruettiger asked def endan t if she kn ew that her daughter and Deck were hav in g sex, def endan t “began to break down and cry ,” and sh

e started t o t al

k. Defen dant acknowl

edged that sexual contact had occurred between Dec k and h er daughter, and Ruettiger stated that at t hat moment t he f ocus of the i nv esti gation ch an ged: “[I] t be ca me very

cl ear to us t hatshe k new e xact ly what w as g oing on wi th her chi ld a nd thi s adul

t mal e, and, at that point *** the inv es ti ga ti on began t o br oa den s ome. ” Du ring t heir q ues t ioning o f defend ant , t he doorto the

inte rvi ewroom

wa s c l ose d, b

ut not l ock

ed . It w asnot Ruet tiger’s in

tent t o close the door t o keep def en dant from

le avi ng; rathe r, it was for privacy

due to the sensi

tive nature of the discussions.-5- Ru et t ige rst at ed t ha t he an d d efe nd an t ha d n o t r o ub le unde rst anding each o t he rdu r ing t he irin

teraction, and thatde fen da nt ne ve rt o ld h im that she wi shed to leav

e. Ru et t ige rt es t ified t ha t he “st o pp ed sp ea kin g to [d ef endan t]” when she began to tell

them i n detail wh

at had been

going on i

n he r ho me b et wee n K.S . a nd De ck. Rue t igger t hen st epp ed o ut of t he
ro om an d adv i se d A ss i sta

nt Sta te’ s A ttorn ey Br ink of what h a d occurred. Br

ink tol d h im to tra n sp ort def

en da nt t o t he s heriff

’s dep ar t ment to giv

e h er Miran da warni

ngs an d to take a formal sta tem en t f rom her. Ruettiger testif

ied that defenda

nt was not taken into cus tody a

t the Ce nter. Ruettiger then asked de

fen dant if “sh e would com

e wi th us to t he crim in al in vestigation off

ic es to t al k about further what we had tal ked about at th

e A dvoca cy Ce nte r,” a nd de fendant agr eed . D efenda nt neveras ke d i

f sh e had to go, a nd the y di d n ot tel l he r th at s he di d not have to accom

pan y them. R uettige r and Ac kerson then esc ort ed defendant t o t he sheriff

’s depart men

t, whi ch was a five

- minu t e w alk f rom t he Ce nt er . D ur ing the wal k, defen dant was not handc

uff ed and
no w eap ons wer e dr awn. Ruettiger stated t hat they

arrived at the s h erif

f’ s departmen

t at ap pr o ximat ely 4 to 4:15 p.m., and def endan t was placed in

an in terview r o o m. Sh o r t ly t he r ea ft er he an d D et ec t ive Ac ke r so n w en t in to spe ak w ith her ; she wa s n ot ha nd cu f f ed an d th ei r we ap ons we re n ot dr awn. Prior to the start o f questioni ng, Ruettiger read

defend ant her Miranda ri

gh ts fr o m a p r ep r int ed fo r m. At ap pr o ximat ely 4 :4 5 p

. m. defend ant signed t he fo rm, indica t ing that she had received the righ

ts, unde rst oo d t hem and waived t hem. D efenda nt never indicat ed t o t he off i cersth at s h e d

i d n ot un de rs ta n d h er r i gh ts, n or di d s he que sti on what was con tai ned i n th e f orm . He an d A ck ers on t hen t old defend ant that they wanted to speak t o he r in mor e de t ail abou t t he r ela t io nsh ip between K. S. an d D ec k. De fen da nt mad e a n o r al inc ulp at ory st at ement , a nd Ru etti

ge r a sk ed if sh e w oul d a ll ow h er con f es si on to be video t ape d. Defend ant agr eed , a nd t hey be gan the vi deotaped st at ement at a

ppr ox i mat ely 5 :3 0 p

. m. Ru et t ige rt es t ified t ha t he did not kno w t hat defend ant and he r hu sband wer e r ece iving se rvi ce s f or de ve lo pme nt ally disabled per so ns unt il defendant mentio ned it dur ing the taped in

terview.-6- The Sta te a l so c al led Detec tiv e R

i chard A ck er son to t est ify at t he
su ppr es si on he ar ing , an d h e la r ge ly co r r o bo r at ed t he t es t imo ny o f his partner, Ruetti

ger. A ck ers on a ddi ti ona ll y tes ti f i ed tha t at th e ti m e of t he second i

ntervi ew of de f en da nt a t the Cente r, th e d oorto the

room they wer e in was op en at first , bu t when d efenda nt be c am e u ps et, began to cry, an d becam e loud, t hey

decided to shut t he door so as not to dis turb othe

rs at the Center. In

addi tion, Ackerson testi

fi edthat when they in terviewed de f

en da nt at th e s h er if f ’s de pa rtm en t, the door to the roo m wa s cl

osed. Further, Ackerson testif ied that defend ant was informed t hat she w as u nder ar re st aft er t hat int er vi ew was compl eted and the vi

deotaped st atemen

t was concluded. The Stat e then

pla yed the vi deotaped st atemen

t o f def endan t made at t he sh eri f f ’s depa rtm en t, wh i ch corr oborate d the p riortes tim

ony of Reuttiger and A ckers on. The re co rd ing bega n at 5: 30 p .m. and showed de fen da nt sit t ing in a r o o m at a t ab le b ein g p r imar ily questioned

by Ruet t iger , w ith Ack er so n s ittin g off to the side. Defend ant st at ed t hat Dec k had been da ting h er fri end, and that defend ant an

d h er hus b an d l et th e c ou pl e l ive in th ei r hom e. In defen dant’s words, Deck

beca me “fascinat ed” wit h K.S ., bou ght her expe nsive gif

ts, and started t o sleep i

n the sam e bed as K.S . D efenda nt freel y of fered i nf ormation to the offi

cers, spoke in

great detail a

bout her kno wledg e o f the re latio nship bet wee n D ec k an d he r daughter, and r ela t ed va r io us sp ec ific inc ide nt s w he r e t he y we r e “ ac t in g lik e boyfriend and girlfriend .” She w as o nly occa siona lly pr omp t ed by t he off i cerswit h q ues t ions; fo r t he mos t par t , d efenda nt co nt ro lled t he
con ve rs ati on and the to pics. At o ne po int , de fen da nt t o ldthe of f i cers that De ck “is a controlli

ng person. He takes adva

ntage of people

that
are me ntall y h andi capped and m ental ly il l l ike me and my husba nd, and any body el se that is tha

t way.” Def

endan t also vol unteered that Deck provided mone y t o t he fam

il y f or t hei r expens es, that he had pl

ann ed to celebr at e K. S. ’s t welft h birt hday by ta king K.S . a nd he r12

- yea r
- o ld friend to a hotel , an

d th at th i s i nci de nt d rov e h er to n ow tel l th e tr uth becauseshe n

o longer wanted Deck wi

th her daughter and she h

oped to pr event him

from vi ctimi zing other young girls, such as K.S. ’s fri end. Defe ndan t acknowledged tha

t wh en Ru etti ger an d A ck ers on fi rst brought her to the s he rif f ’s depa rtme nt, the y gave her Miranda ri gh ts and sh

e understood t hose ri ghts. Ruettiger then sh owed defend ant a fo rm and sh

e stated that sh e si gned the f orm and wai ved-7- her righ ts. The recorded st atemen t concluded

at 5:54 p.m

. Th e S tate then rested i

ts case. Defend an t cal

led Maurice Johns on to testify on her beh

al f. He stated t ha t it i s c om

m on pr ac ti ce af ter a V SI t o m

eet wi th the minor’s pa re nts and info rm t hem of t he li kel y n ext steps, and thatt his w as his purpo se of speaki

ng wi th defen dant: “I told [def

endan t] t hat based upon what I o bser ved in t he inte rview she w as no t being tru thf ul . I in di ca ted to her t hat t he invest igat ion wo uld co nt inue and that the re was a poss i

bi l ity that the chi

l dren were at risk of be ing rem oved f rom her ca re. ” J oh n son testif

ied that if

he conti nued to bel

ie ve that defend ant was not tell

in g the trut h ab out the

si tua ti on betwee n K .S. and De ck , he had

th e p owe

r to rem ov e K .S. f

rom th e home if he t hou ght it was i

n the b est in

terests o f the ch

il d. At o ne poi

nt, Joh ns on stated he wasalone in

the roo m wi

th defen dant, and af

ter he to ld h

er that she n

eede d to “th ink a

b out h er da ug hter an d s h e n ee d[ ed ] to pr ote ct he r,” defend ant “te lls m e t hat she w ill

t ell the t ru t h, a nd she goes on to relate that *** she bel ie ved t he r e w as a s ex ua l re lat io nsh ip between [Deck] and [K.S.] based upon what she had obs erved.” Af ter defend ant made t his admission, Jo hnso n left t he r oo m and as ked t he detectivesto come b ack i n. Def en da n t t hen

agai n adm itted her knowledge of t he sexu al relat ionship be t wee n Dec k and K .S. Johnson co uld not re call if the d oo r t o t he inte rvi ewroom

wa s op en orclosed dur ing t his sess ion. At t his point, Johns on’s tim el in e of the i ntervi ews dif fers f rom that provided by DetectivesRuettiger and A ckerson. Johnson stated t hat t his discu ssio n wit h d ef

en da nt oc curre d pr

i or to the s ec ond

VSI of K.S., wh erea s th e dete cti v essta ted th at i t too k place after K.S. ’s
sec ond VSI. A

ccordi ng to John son, duri ng h er secon d VSI K.S. admit t ed t hat she had a sex ual relati onshi p with Deck, and thereaf

ter defend ant was i

ntervi ewed f or a t hi rd tim e “to see if she wo uld give clarificat ion” to what K .S. ha d reveal ed. A gai n, th i s testi m ony di f f ers f rom that of the detectives, wh

o stat ed that there were two in terviews of defend ant at th

e C en ter, an d not thr ee . Joh ns on co uld no t r ec all if defend ant sa

i d a n y thin g a t th at ti m e a b out b ein g in t elle ct ua lly ch alle nged or dev el

opm en tall y di sab led. Jo hnso n t est ifi

ed t hat he bel ie ved that defenda

nt was arrested at t he Center, but als o stat ed that he co uld no t r ec all if

the detectives e

ver told def

endan t she was un

der arrest whi

le ther e. J ohn son

sta ted th at h e th en took K .S. into-8- pr ot ect ive custody, and that DCFS sub sequentl y pl aced def e ndant’s
o t he rch ildr en int o pr o t ec t ive cu st o dy a s w ell. At the c l ose of

the s uppre ssi

on h eari ng, th e tri al courtruled

a s foll ows. The co ur t fou nd t hat t her e we re t hre e se par at e inte rr og at ions of d efenda nt, with the ini

tial questioni

ng occurr in

g when she f

irst
ar r iv edat the C en

ter and was

interv i ewed by Pl uth. Th e court determi ned tha t no Miranda warni

ngs we re r eq ui red f ort his sess ion. The court then f

ound that t he second i

nterrogat ion al so occurred at t he C ent er , w hen de fendant was que st ioned by the d et ect ives and Jo hnso n. The co ur t held t hat defend ant sho uld have be en giv en Miranda war nings and su

pp re ss ed th e i n cu l pa tory sta tem en ts made by defend ant du r in g t ha

t sessi on. Th

e tri al court f ound that the th

i rd inte rrog ati on oc cur re d at t he she riff’s dep ar t ment. The courthel d that defend ant wa s p r o pe r ly Mirandized, t ha t he rst at eme n t was vo lun t ar ily

made, and t hat t her e we re sufficient inter vening ci rcums tances t o e lim

inate t he t aint fr om t he invalid que st ioning at t he Cen ter. The trial

court therefore f

ound that defenda

nt’s statemen

t at the sheri ff ’s departme

nt was adm

is si bl e. At def endant’s bench

trial, K.S. test if

ied that the sexual abuse occurred as se t for t h dur ing the ea rl i er supp res si on h ea ri ng . Joh ns on and Ru et t ige rals o t es t ified at t r ial, an d t he ir t es t imo ny la rge ly mi rrored that wh

i ch they pre vio us l

y ga ve dur ing the su ppr es si on heari ng. The p ar

ti esalso sti

pu l ate d a s to what th

e te sti m ony of Ackerso n would b e at t rial, ba sed upo n his prio r t est imony at t he earli ersup pr essio n hear ing. Finally, t he video t ape d st at ement made by defend ant on

Ju ly 1 7, 2003 at the sherif f’s department was als o adm itted in to evi dence. The trial cou rt f oun d d ef en da nt gu il ty of t he o ffense o f per mitt ing t he se xu al abuse o f

a ch il d (720 ILCS 150/5 .1 (West 200 2)). Defend ant was acqui

tt ed , h ow ev er, of

the cha rge of preda tory cr im in al sex ual ass aul t (720 ILCS 5/1 2–14.1 (a)(1) (W est 200 2)). The reaf ter, defen dant fi led a m ot ion f or a new trial , all

egi ng, int er alia , that the

tria l court erred in den yin g d ef en da nt’s m otion to suppress he

r incul patory statem en ts of J ul y 17, 200 3. T he cour t deni eddefendant’s m oti on , and sentenced defendant to four years’ incarc er at ion. In an un pub l i sh ed or der unde r Rul

e 23, th e app el l ate court reversed def enda nt’s conv

iction and rem

anded thi s cause f

or a new-9- t r ial. T he ap pe llat e c o ur t de t er mined t ha t de fen da nt wa s in “c us t o dy” at t he t ime that she made he r incu lpat or y sta t ement at t he Ce nt er and that she sho uld have been g iven Miranda war nings at that ti m e. In addi tion, the court found that this statement was also in

volun tary, as de f en da nt’ s w il l wa s overborne by i

nve stigators who knew of h er de ve lo pment al

di sa b il ity an d c oer ce d h er to co n f es s. The a

pp el l ate courtfurt her held t hat beca use t her e we re insufficient int er vening ci rcums tances to re move t he t aint o f defend ant ’s first co nfessio n at t he Center f rom her subs equ ent st at ement s at t he she riff’s dep ar t ment, t he l atterin cu l

pa tory sta tem en t sh oul d n ot h av e been ad m itted at tr ia l

. No. 3–04 –0640 (un pub l i sh ed order und er Suprem

e Court Rule 23). Addi tional facts, as n

ecessar y , w ill be con si dered in c onn ec ti on with the i ssues presen

ted.

AN AL YSIS The Sta te c onten dsth at th e a pp el l ate cou rt err ed in re ver sing defend ant ’s co nvi ction an d reman din g this cause f or a new trial wh er ein the in

cul pator y statements m

ade by de fendant ar e t o be suppressed. Ac cordi

ng to the State, the

appell ate court i

nc orr ect ly he ldt hat de fend ant ’s s ec o nd c o nfes sio n at t he s her iff ’s dep ar t ment sho uld n ot h ave be en adm itted at t rial

because it was tai nted by her earli erincul patory statement at the Center. Defen dant argues t ha t t his courtsho uld affir m t he jud gme nt of t he ap pe llat e c o ur t , in t ha t it
co r r ec t ly he ldt hat t he inculpa t or y sta t ement given bydefend ant at t he Center was inv al id i

n that it vi

olated Miranda an d w as inv o lu nt ar y, and it t aint ed de fe nd ant’s subseq uent c onfession at t he sheriff ’s de pa rtm en t. W e d i sa gree wi th de f en da nt. In determ ini ng w he ther a tria l court ha s prope

rl y rul ed o n a m oti on t o su pp r es s, find ing s o f fac t an d c r ed ibilit y de t er minat ions
ma de by the trial court are accorded great deferen ce an d w il l be reversed only if they are again st t he manifest weight of t he evi dence. In re Christopher K. , 217 Ill . 2d 348, 373 (20 05) ; People v. Braggs , 209 Ill . 2d 492, 505 (2003). We rev ie w de n ovo , how ever , t he ul timate question po se d b yth e legal chal lenge to the t rial court ’s
ru ling on a s upp re ssio n mot ion. People v. Nicholas , 218 Ill . 2d 104, 116 (2005). Further, it is proper for us to consider the t est imony adduced at t rial , as well

as at t he suppressi o n he ar in g. People v.-10- Melock , 149 Ill . 2d 423, 433 (1992). Wh ere a def endan t chal le nges t he ad m i ss i b il ity of a c on fessio n t hro ugh a mot ion t o s upp re ss, t he St at e bea rs t he bur den o f pro ving t he co nfessio n was volu nt ar y by a preponderance

of t he evi den

ce. 72 5 ILC S 5/11 4–11( d) (W est 200 2); Braggs , 209 Ill . 2d at 505. In Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 69 4, 8 6 S . C t. 1602 ( 19 66 ) , t he Un it ed St at es Su pr eme Co ur t he ld th at, pr i or to t he start of an i

nterrogat ion, a person b ei ng ques t ione d by

la w enfo rc ement off

i cersm us t f i rs t “b e w ar

n ed th at h e hasa r i gh t to
r ema in silent, t hat any st at ement he do es mak e may be used as evi dence agai ns t hi m , a n d th at he has a ri

ght to the presence of

an at t o r ne y, ei

the r retai ned or appoin ted,” as long as tha

t person has b

een “taken into cu stod

y or otherwi se

depri ved of hi s f reedom of ac ti on in anysi gni f i can t way .” Miranda , 384 U.S. at 444, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 706- 07, 86 S . Ct. at 1 612 ; s ee

al so Melock , 1 49 I ll. 2d a t 439 . T he finding of custody i s essen

tial , as the prein

terro gation warni

ngs req uir ed by Miranda are in

tendedto assure that any

in cul pator y statement m

ade by a de fendant is not simply

t he pr od uct of “ ‘t he co mpulsion inher ent in custodial surroundin

gs.’ ” Yarborough v. Alvarado , 541 U.S. 652, 661, 158 L. Ed. 2d 938, 949, 124 S. Ct . 2 140 , 2 147 (1 994 ), quo t ing Miranda , 384 U.S. at 458, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 714, 86 S. Ct. at 1619. The d etermi

nation of whether a def

endan t is “ in custody,” and, therefore, whet her t he wa rnings s et for t h i n Miranda are required, i nvol ves“ ‘[t]wo discrete i nqui ries ***: fi rst, what were th e ci rcums tances sur ro unding t he in terro gation; a

nd second, given those circumstances, would a

reasonabl

e person hav

e fel t he or she was not at l i b er ty to ter m in ate the in terro gation an

d le ave.’ ” Braggs , 20 9 I ll. 2d at 505-06, quo ting Thompson v. Keohane , 516 U.S. 99, 112, 133 L. Ed. 2d 383, 394 , 1 16 S . C t . 4 57, 465 (1 995 ). When exa mini ng t he ci rcums tances o f int err

oga ti on, this c ourt h

asf ound a nu m be r of f actors to be rel

evan t in determ

in in g whether a stat ement was m ade in a custodial

setting, i ncl udin g: (1) the location, tim

e, lengt h, m

ood, and mode of the questioni ng; (2) t he number of p olice o ffi cer s pr ese nt dur ing t he inte rr og at ion; ( 3) t he pr ese nce o r a bsenc e o f fa mil y and fri endsof t he in div idua l;(4) any in dicia of a f ormal arrest pro cedure,
su ch asthe sh ow of we ap ons orf orc e, ph y si ca l re strai nt, book ing or f i ngerp rin ting;(5 ) t he manner by which the individual ar rived at t he pla ce of q ues t ioning; a nd (6 ) t he ag e, intelligence , a nd me ntal m akeup-11- of the a ccus ed. Se e, e.g. , Braggs , 209 Ill. 2d a t 5 06; Melock , 14 9 I ll. 2d at 44 0. Aft er ex aminin g a nd we igh ing t he se va r io us f actors, we then must mak e a n ob j ec tive de term ina ti on as t o w het her , u nder t he fact s pr ese nt ed, “a re aso nable pe rso n, inno cent of a ny cr ime” wo uld have bel ie ved that he or she could termi nate the encounter and was f ree to lea ve
. Braggs , 20 9 Ill. 2d at 506 ; People v. Fair , 159 Il l . 2 d 51, 66- 67 (19 94). As a p r elimina r y mat t er , we no t e t ha t t he t r ial c our t found that defend ant wa s q

ue sti o ned o n t hre e o cca sions on J uly 17, 200 3: she
was questioned

twice at the Center–whe

n sh e i ni tial ly arrived at that l oca ti on and w as int er viewed by Plut h, a nd thereafter when she was qu e stioned

by Reuttiger, Ackerson an

d Johnson a

fter K.S. adm

itted that she ha d e ng ag ed in

sex wit h Dec k–a nd lat er t hat aft er noo n at t he sh eri f f ’s depa rtm en t. A s s tate d, f

ind ing s of fact made by a tri al

court on a su ppres si on m otion are ac co r de d d efe r en ce be ca us e t ha t co ur t is in t he bes t po sitio n t o o bser ve t he co nduc t and d emeano r o f the parties and w itnes ses, t o a sses s t heir cr edibility, and t o g ive the appr opr i ate wei ght to the e

vi den ce. People v. Sorenson , 196 Ill . 2d 425, 431 (2001). Based upon our review of the record, we hold that t he trial court ’s f in din g that defen

dant was questioned i

n two se pa ra te sess ions at the

Cente r an d there af ter a t the sh eri f f ’s depa rtm en t i s n ot agai nst the m ani fest weigh

t o f the ev

ide nce. Having f oun d that d efenda nt was subjec t t o t hre e qu est ioning
sess ions on

July 17, 200 3, t he t rial co ur t t hen fra med it s ana lysi s and holdi ngs as f ollows: “The initial que st ioni ng o f [d efenda nt ] o ccu rs w hen she bri ngs her dau ght er in for, basically, a V SI *** [a ]nd [de f en da nt] is que st ioned in a very, I g ues s no t an abn o r ma l f as hi on where a par

ent br ing s in a ch ild, t ha t t he r e is inf orm ati on t ha t t ha t ch ildis pot entia

ll y a vi ctim of abus e. *** [At t ha t t ime defen

dant] at lea st is s us pe ct ed o f en ab ling so me type of a buse . B ut I t hink t hat at t hat ini t ial stage, that que st ioning i s n

ot at all t he t ype t ha t ne ed s M ir an da t o ap pl y. Ho we ve r , t he n t he r e is a su bs eque nt, a second, i ntervi ew at th e A dvoca cy Center wh ere i t’s pretty clear th at [ de f en da nt] is considered a suspect. She ha s been –the in form ation sh e i s pr ovid ing h asal

re ad y b een in v es ti ga

te d a nd som

ewhat in val ida ted. And t he se co nd t ime she is que st ioned at t he-12- Adv ocacy Center , i t’s cl ea r to me t ha t she is a su sp ec t in t his act ion. A n d i

t’s also p re tty cl ea r to m e th at she a t t hat po int sho uld have been Mi

ra ndized befo re t he qu est ioning proceeded. So, I thin

k that, clearl

y, the se cond i ntervi ew at t he Adv ocacy Cent er , t he de fendant is the f ocus. I suppose at t hat po intyou could argue t hat she c ou ld have w alked ou t . S he
co uld ha ve be en f re e t o lea ve
. Bu t I do t hink t ha t it wo uld have been

muc h more obvi

ous to her had the

y f oll owed [Miran da] and giv

en her her Mi

randa rights so she wo uld have been aware of the consequences of her admissions. So wi th re ga rd to t hat sec ond in

terview, I b el

ie ve Mi randa sho uld have been giv

en. I have t o follow t he Supr eme Cour t’s deci sions and suppress those statements that are m ade. Now, we ge t down to, real l y , wh at I cal

l the th i rd inte racti on wh ere [ de f en da nt] h asb een

tak en to [t he sheriff

’s depa rt m en t]. She i s Mi

randi zed, and sh

e gives f

urther incriminating st at ement s. * ** I t hink at t hat po int t he off

i cers have taken all

the step s necessary

to pro tect her rights. * * * T he in cu sto dy , the tr

ue in cu sto dy in v es ti ga ti on [a t t h e sheriff ’s department] cr ea tes some addi tional is sues. There, cle ar ly, Mi

randa wasgiven. A nd

I s upp ose the re is a que sti on of whet her t her e wa s a su ffi

cient inter vening of

ci rcums tances that would va

li date the supplem

ental que st ioning and t he
v i de ota ped st at ement t hat was given. Clear ly, at t his po int [d ef en da nt] is co op er at ing, is g iving what appears to be a

free
an d vol un tar y sta tem en t. I know there is [ sic ] issues regardi ng he r men tal state, her I.Q., her abi

li ty to ful ly understand, but I am

not convin

ced that the stat emen

ts made to the o ff

icers at t he [sheriff

’s de pa rtm en t] was [ sic ] i

nv ol un tary . ** * I a

m goi ng to al l ow t he qu es t io ning wit hin t he [sh erif f’ s departmen

t], and I am going to b ar the

prior ques tion

ing of [def endan t].” It is rea dily appar ent fr o m a revi ew of the trial

court ’s rul

in g that it faile d t o sp ec ifica ll

y re so lv e the threshold legal is sue of wh

ether defend ant wa s “ in c us t o dy” dur ing eit her of t he qu est ioning se ssio ns-13- at the Center. Despi

te not havi

ng an swered

t he criti cal question wh

ic h determi neswhethe

r Miranda warnin

gs must be giv en un de ra c er t ain setof f ac ts, th e tr

i al cou rt n ev er th el es s c on cl ud ed th at Miranda warni ngs were unn

ece ss ar y fo r t he first que st ioning se ssio n at t he Cen ter, b ut w ere n

ec es sa ry f or th e s ec on d i

nter rog ati on. In b oth instan c es, th e tr

i al cou rt m i sd i re cte d i ts a n al y sis a n d p eg ge d i

ts Miranda holdi

ngs upo n what it p er ceived wer e t he va ry ing level s of
su sp i ci on th e of f i ce rs h ar b ore d w ith

respec t t o de fendant’s guilt . T he Uni ted Stat es Suprem

e Court has made i

t clear t hat “a police offi

cer’s subjec t ive v i ew th at the ind ivid ua l un de rqu es t io ning is a su sp ec t , if
undi sc l ose d, doesnot b

ea r up on t he qu est ion whe t her t he in div idua l is in cu st o dy fo r p ur po se s o f Miranda .” Stansbu ry v. Ca lifornia , 511 U.S. 318, 324, 128 L. Ed. 2d 293, 299, 11 4 S. C t. 1526, 1529-30 (1994 ). In Stansbury , the Court reasoned that as long as t he offi

cer’s belie fs wit h re spe ct t o a n indivi dual’s guil

t are not reveal

ed to t hat per so n, it doe s “

n ot af f ec t th e ob

jective ci rcums tances of an inte rrog ati on or intervi

ew, and thus can

not aff ect the Mi ran da custody in

quiry .” Stansbury , 511 U.S. at 324, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 300, 114 S. Ct. at 1530 . If

, howeve r, an o ffice r ’s be liefs o f a p er so n’s gu ilt “a re con ve y ed , b y word ordeed, to the in

div idua l being q ues tion ed,” such bel ie fs “m ay bear upon the custody

i ssue.” Stansbury , 511 U.S. at 32 5, 128 L . E d. 2d at 300, 114 S . Ct. at 1530. In turn, such dis closed be lie fs “ are relevant only to the extent they

would af fect how a r eas ona ble per so n in the p os itio n of t he individual be i ng questioned

would gauge the b

readt h of hi s or

he r ‘ “ f reedom of action.” ’ ” Stansbury , 511 U.S. at 325, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 300, 114 S. Ct. at 1 530 ; s ee

al so Braggs , 209 Il

l . 2d at 50 6-07. W

e n ote, howev

er, that ev en un de rsu ch cir cu mst an ce s, t his wo uld be “o ne amo ng many f actors that bear upon the ass essm ent whether that in

div idua l wa s in
cus tody,”and no t t he sole determ in ant of that is sue. Stansbury , 511 U.S. at 325, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 300, 114 S. Ct. at 1530. The re is no e vidence befo re us t hat any susp icions t hat t he inv esti gators may have had wit h re spe ct t o d efenda nt ’s po tential
cu l pa b il ity were ev er c ommunicat ed t o he r, and, in fact , d efenda nt ma kes no such argum

ent. Further, the trial

c ourt ma

de no factual findingthat t he o ffice r s c o nve yed in any manner a belief to defend ant that sh e w asgui l ty orhow this

knowledge would af

fect a r ea so na ble pers on in defendant’s po sitio n wit h re spe ct t o he r p er cep t ion t hat she-14- was free t o lea ve. Acco rd ingly, the t rial co ur t er re d bybasing it s ru ling that Miranda warnin

gs w er e r equ ired pr ior t o d efenda nt ’s se co nd st at ement at the Centersolel y upon w hat it be li eved to be the offi

cers’ focus upon d

ef endan t as a suspect. Bec aus e the tri al cou rt f ai led to em pl oy the pr oper an al

y tic al f ram ework a nd to con si

der the f actors re levant t o a sses sing whe t her defend ant was subj ec t t o custo dia l in terro gation, weaddress thi s i ssue i n the f irst i nstance and e xamine the relevant factors. As sta ted , one f

ac to r considered in

ma kin g a custody de term ina ti on i s the man ne r by wh i ch the i ndi vi dual arrive d at t he pla ce o f qu es t io ning . I t is u ndis pu t ed t hat de fe ndant mad e her own way to the Center, as she

was driv en ther e by

Deck, who wa s also wait ing to pic

k her and K.S. up and take them h ome af ter t he VSI

. Defendant’s vo lu nt ar y ar r iva l at t he Ce nt er by m eans of her own tran sp ortati

on is distinguishab

le from a si tuation in whi ch a defend ant is tra n sp orte d to a nd f

rom the place of i

nterrogat ion b

y l aw enfo rc ement officer s and has no ot he r mean s of egress f rom that l ocati on
. Cf. Braggs , 2 09 I ll. 2d a t 511 -1 4 ( defend ant fou nd “i n cu st o dy” f

or Miranda pur po ses w her e o ffi cer s t ra nspo rt ed he r t o a nd f rom m ul tip le i nterroga tion s). We also loo k t o t he loc at ion, t ime, lengt h, m ood, and mo de o f the questioni ng, as wel l a s the num

ber of police off

icers present. We fi

rst examine t he init ial q ue st io ning se ss io n at the Ce nt er . T he t est imony
was uncontroverted t hat

it wa s s tanda

rd procedur

e f ora pa re nt t o be in terviewed by

so meone fro m the C ent er pr ior t o a VS I o f the ch ild in order to ga

in p erm i ss i on for t he chil

d’s inter view, and t hat t his was t he purpo se of Pl

uth’s di scussi

on with de

fen dant. The evi

dence sh owed th at t his w as a v er y sho r t en co un t er o f a fe w min ut es du r at io n, t ha t t he dis cussi

on was onl

y b et wee n defen

dant and Pl

uth, and that defend ant gr ant ed Pl

ut h per mission t o int er view K. S. and, in the
cour se of doin

g so, denied that any

abuse h ad takenpla

ce. No polic e officer s we re pr ese nt dur ing t his ini t ial ques t ioning se ssio n. Analyzingt he se sa me spec ifi c fact or s in te rms o f the sec ond in terview of def endan t at the Ce

nter, we note that it to ok place in an in terview roo m wh ic h co nt ained a t able and chairs . T he testim ony w as unc ontrove

rted tha t thi s se ssi

on lasted f or the s hort

durati on of o nly betwee n 10 to 15 m

inute s. Cf. People v. Townes , 91 Ill . 2d 32, 36 (1982) (factors support in g defen dant was i

n custody inc lu de d h is-15- inte rrog ati on over a 12-hour period). Al though the testim

ony w as not en t ire ly cl ea r a s to wh

eth er an d w h en th e d oor of

the roo m wa s op ened or clos ed, it ap pea rs t hat it w as c lose d at t he t ime tha t defend ant began

to cry an

d becom e ups et a n d l oud asa m ea n s to en sure not o nly the privacy

of the sen si

tive di scussi ons but al so that othersat the Centerwere not disturbed. There was n o indi cation that the door was eve

r locked. The ev ide nc e w as als o un co nt r o ve r t ed t ha t t his se ss io n wi th defend ant was i

ntended to both apprise h er of the f act that her 11- yea r
- o lddaughter had

jus t ad mit t ed she wa s ha ving se x w it h D ec k in defendant’s home , and al so, in the words of R eut tige r, t o he lp t he inv esti gators do s om

e “f ac t f ind ing ” w ith r

es pe ct to K .S.’ s a

dm i ss i on so that they

coul d en sure her saf ety. In addi

tion, i t is un dis puted that Joh ns on in f orm ed de f en da nt th at, b ec au se

h e c oul d n ot b el ie v e her de nia ls th at K .S. had not b een a bu se d, h e c oul d re m ove K .S. f rom defend ant ’s ca re if he tho ught t her e wa s a d ange r t o t he minor and if that was in the best inter est s o f the child. T her e is no t hing in the record to in di ca te that defenda

nt was ever threatened that he r chi ldren
wo uld be rem

oved from

her care as a result of

h er f ai l ure to confess; defen dant was si

mpl y a pprised of the nex

t steps t hat would b e taken to en su re h er chi l d’ s s af ety . F urth er, the rec ord is devoi d of

anything t o indic a t e t ha t t he inve st iga t o r s ha r as se d d efe nd an t o rr ais ed t he ir voices. It is also undi sputed that when def endan t began to reveal her knowledge o f t he r ela t io nsh ip bet wee n K.S . a nd De ck, t he que st ioning immed iat ely ceas ed. I t is lik ew ise un co nt r o ve r t ed t ha t du r ing t his short sessi on, defen dant was i ntervi ewed al tern ate l y by Joh ns on alone, an d at s om e p o int t he t wo de t ec t ive s a lso jo ine d h im; ho we ve r , all three me n wer e no t in the r oo m with d efenda nt dur ing the durati on of the questioni

ng. Al though de fen da nt po ints t o the f ac t tha t a n um be r of inv esti gators an d l aw en f orc em en t pe rs onn el we re at t he Ce nt er f

or K.S. ’s VSI, there is

no evi dence that they

converged on def

endan t as a group. T o t he contrary, the record refl ects that defendan

t interacted wi th di f f eren t in di v i du als a t di f f eren t ti m esf or dif f eren t pu rp ose s, wi th t he ex ce pt io n

of A ss i sta nt Sta te’ s A ttorn ey Br ink, w h o appe ar s to have ha d n o pe r so na l co nt ac t wit h d efe nd an t wh ile she was a t t he Cen ter. We als o find it signi

fi cant that de f

en da nt wa s i nter ac tin g w ith t he se indi vi

dual s at the Center and not at a police station, whi ch1 Johnson t estified t hat upon visiting defe ndant’s home, he could

visibly
see th at her hu sban

d h ad “v ery lo w” in tell ec tual capabil iti es
. -16- wo uld like ly

pr ese nt a m

ore forebodin

g, in tim ida ting an d adversari

al
en v i ron m en t. We als o no t e t ha t t he r e w er e n o ind icia o f fo r mal arres t procedures dur ing defend ant ’s qu est ioning at t he Cent er . T he record is de voi d of an y us e of a s h ow of f orc e or we ap on s, ph

y si ca l re strai nt, booking, or fi

nge rpri nti ng. Cf. Pe o

p l e v
. B ro wn , 136 Ill . 2d 116, 127- 28 (1 990 ) ( fact or s su ppo rt ing defend ant was i n custody i

ncl udedthat pol ic e officer s sea rc hed a nd hand cuffed defend ant , t oo k him to t he poli ce station, and f

il led out an arres t ca r d)

. T hr o ug ho ut t he t ime defend ant was at the Center, the detectiveswer e in plain clot hes a nd not un if orme d, although they di

d carry holstered weapo ns. We al so no te that al

th oug h de f en da nt wa s n ot ad v i se d that s h e w asf

re e to le ave, sh e al so at no t im

e requested to le ave. In m aki ng a custody determ

in ation f or purpo ses of Miranda , we also l ook t o t he ag e, intelligence , a nd ment al makeu p o f the accused. The re cor d ref lec ts th at defend an

t i s a m i ddl e-a ge d adul t who took special education cl

asses an d graduated from h

igh scho ol, and w ho
can read we l l e

nough to enjoy

a novel . Defen

dant has n

o crim in al history and no acknowledged contact wi th t he cr iminal ju st ice sys t em, al though the eviden

ce reveals t

hat she has d ealt wit h DCFS in the pa st. Defend ant unde rw ent a fitne ss eva luat ion p rio r t o t rial, a nd al though Dr. Zoo t concluded that def endan t’s ful l-ran ge IQ of 74 pla ces her in the “ borde rl ine range of intel lectual f unction ing,” it was
unco nt radicted

and sti pulated th at def

endan t was f it to stand tria l becauseshe posse ssed the ab il ity to un ders tand courtpr oc eed ings and legal conc epts. Cf. Braggs , 20 9 I ll. 2d at 511-13 (fac t or s su ppo rt ing defendant’s in

terro gation was custo dia

l i ncl uded fact t hat

she h adan IQ of 54, could n

ot readil y un derstand her ci

rcu m stances, and had been fou nd unfit t o s t and trial ). Al though there was testim

ony tha t defend ant and her husba nd we re re ceiving servi ces through an agen

cy for t he devel

opmen tall y di sabl ed, it i s uncl

ear whether those servi

ces were pr imar il y di re cte d tow ardsde f

en da nt, or w h eth er she was a
re cipient of

su ch se rvi ce s a s a

resul t of her ma rriage to her husb and. 1 Furth er, the tes tim ony i s und i sp ute d th at d ef

en da nt d i d not have-17- di f f i cu l ty in com m uni cati ng with an

y one a t the Ce nter, and tha

t there
was no ou t wa r d in dic at io n w ha t so ev er t ha t she is d ev elo pme nt ally dis abl ed. We also note t hat

dur ing the vi

deotaped co nf

essi on taken f rom defend ant late r in t he day at t he she riff’s dep ar t ment, defend ant spe aksve ry flue nt ly wit h t he o ffi

cer s, e ngag es t hem in conve rsa t ion, and has no appa

ren t comm uni cation di f f i cul tie s. Cf. Braggs , 20 9 I ll. 2d at 511-13 (fac t or s su ppo rt ing t hat t he ment ally ret ar ded defend ant was in custody i

ncl uded fact t hat poli

ce comm uni cated with h

er through her

gu ardi an /s i ste r, a s d ef en da nt wa s un able to com

m un i ca te di rectl y wi th of f i cers ). Ourre view o f the abo ve f

ac torslea dsto the c on cl

us i on th at, based up o n t he cir cu mst an ce s p r es en t ed , a r ea so na ble inno ce nt pe r so n in de f en da nt’s pos iti on woul d hav

e f el t f re e to te rm in ate her enc ounter and lea v e th e C en ter if sh e s o de si re d. W ith re sp ec t to t he fir st que st ioning se ssio n bet wee n Plut h and d efenda nt , t her e is no t hing in t he re cor d to indicat e t hat t his was a nything o t her t han a r ou t ine dis cus sion b etw een a m

em ber of the Ce

nter and a paren

t who was requested to gi

ve he r pe rm i ss i on to a

ll ow her child to t ake par t in a VSI ba se d up on i

nf orm ati on t ha t t he ch ild w as po t en t ially a vic t im of abuse. Accordin

gly, there is n

o indi cation that defe

n dant wa s in custody at the tim

e this in teraction to ok place. With re s pec t t o t he se co nd qu est ioning se ssio n defend ant unde rw ent at t he Ce nt er , d ur ing which s he ga ve an incul patory sta tem en t, we n otet ha t t he t r ial c o ur t , wh ile no t sp ec ifica lly rul ing on whether defen dant was i

n custody duri

ng thi s questioni

ng, did st ate that “y ou could argue t hat she co uld have walke d o ut . S he co uld have been fr ee t o lea ve
. ” W e a ls o ob serv e tha t in its rul ing th e tri al court contrasted the

ci rcum sta nc esof th e q ue sti onin g a t th e C en ter wi th t he subs equ ent que sti

oni ng of d efenda nt at t he she riff’s dep ar t ment a nd characteri zedthe l

atter i nterr og at io n a s t he “in c us t o dy, t he t r ue in custody in vestigation.” These co mment s s t r o ng ly suggest that t he trial courtwas not convi

nced th at defen

dant was sub

ject to a custodial interroga tion at the C en

ter. The ap pe ll ate

court, howe ve

r, a rri ved a t a c ontrary

con clusio n, hold ing t hat defend ant was in cust od y dur ing he r s ec ond inte rrog ati on at the Center, and theref

ore Miranda warnin

gs w ere r equ ired . We obs er ve th at the e nti

re extent of

the a na l y si s of the a ppel l ate court wi th re sp ec t t o t he q ue st io n o f whe t he rde fen da nt wa s in c us t o dy is-18- compri sed

of t wo sent ence s. T he ap pellat e co ur t neithe r d iscuss ed t he f actors pe r t ine nt in

ma kin g a determi

nation a s t o w het her a de fendant is subj ect to a custodial

in terro gation nor em

ploy ed the ap propriat e analytica l framewo rk in arr iving at its d ecisio n. Based upon our revi

ew of the record, we rej ec t the con cl us i on of t he app ellate co ur t and hol d t hat wit h re spe ct t o t he se co nd que st ioning sessi

on at the C en

ter, a reasonabl

e i nnocen t person, faced wi th t he c irc ums t anc es in whic h de fend ant fo und her se lf, wo uld have felt at li berty to termi

nate the questioni

ng an d le ave. In sum

, we ho ld that t he circ umst ance s su rr ou nding t he se co nd que sti oni ng se ss i on at t he Center

we re n on cu sto dia l, as no innoce nt per so n wo uld have bel ie ved t hat her free do m was r est ra ined. Since d efenda nt was no t in
cus tody, Miranda wa r nin gs we r e n o t ne ce ss ar y. Having de t er mine d t ha t t he inc ul pa t o r y stat ement made by defend ant dur

ing the se con d ques ti oni

ng se ss i onat the

Cente r di d not
v i ol ate Mi randa , we address def endan t’s argu ment t ha t not wit hst anding t he la ck o f Miranda war nings, he r s tate me nt was nevertheless

in val id, as i t was in volun tary. We n

ot e that defendant’s
ar gument echo es t he ap pellat e co ur t ’s co ncer ns abo ut t he voluntarines s of

t his st at ement . We also obs er ve t hat beca use t he trial courtsu pp r es se d t his in

cul pator y statement based

upon its b el

ie f that defend ant wa s n o t pr o pe r ly Mirandized , it was unn e cessary for that
cou rt to engage in an analy sis of whether de fendant’s st at ement was als o vo lu nt ar y. Even where Miranda warnin gsare n ot re qu i re d, t h e f if th amendment st ill

demand s t hat a de fendant ’s co nfessio n be vo lu nt ar y. Beckw ith v. United

States , 425 U.S. 341, 347-48, 48 L. Ed. 2d 1, 8, 96 S. Ct . 16 12, 161 7 (1 976 ); Melock , 14 9 Il l . 2d at 4 52. The te st f

or volun tarines s is “w he t he rt he de fe nd an t mad e t he st at eme nt fr ee ly,
vo lu nt ar ily, and wi

thout compul sion or inducem ent o f a ny

sor t, or whetherthe defend ant ’s will was o ver co me at t he t ime he or she conf ess ed.” People v. Gilliam , 17 2 I ll. 2d 4 84, 500 (1 996 ). In mak ing t his determi

nation, we conside

r th e tot al

ity of the ci

rcums tances sur ro unding the statement, i ncl udin g: (1) th e defe

ndan t’s age, in tell ige nce, education, ex

perien ce, an d p hysic al c o nd it io n a t t he t ime of th e dete

n t ion and inter ro gat ion; ( 2) t he du ra t ion o f the inter ro gat ion; (3 ) t he pr es enc e o f Miranda warni ngs; (4) the presence of a ny ph y si ca l or m en tal ab us e; an d (5 ) the l eg al ity an d du rati on of-19- t he deten tion . See, e.g. , People v. Willis , 21 5 I ll. 2d 517 , 536 (2 005); Gilliam , 172 Ill . 2d at 500 -01 . Th e Sta te b ea rs the bu rde n of provin g, by a preponderance of

the evi dence, th at t he conf

essi on was vo lu nt ar y. 725 ILCS 5/1 14– 11( d) ( West 200 2); In re G.O. , 191 Ill . 2d 37, 49 ( 2000)

. We fi rst consider def

en dant ’s age, i

ntell ige nce, ba ckground, experi ence, me ntal c apaci

ty, education, an

d phy sical con di ti on at t he t ime of que st ioning. As discu ssed ear lier in this o pinion, the evi dence is un con trov er te d tha t de f en da nt’ s i nte llec tua l l im itati ons we re n ot o ut wa r dly apparent to t he detec ti v es and di d not interf

ere with h

er ab il ity to comm

uni cate w it h t he m. Thi s i s conf irm ed by our o wn revi ew of defend ant ’s su bseq uent video t ape d st at ement , w her ein she speaks fl uently with the offi

cers in a conversa

tional man ne r, engag es– and often l

eads–the off

ic ers i n conversation, f

reely off er s details, and i s v ery

open and coopera

tiv e. T here are n

o outward indicat ions f

rom our v i ew ing of t his re co rd ed s t at ement t hat defend ant hasa di sab

il ity. Cf. Braggs , 209 Ill . 2d at 516 (factors support in g that d efendant’s co nfe ss io n w as inv o lu nt ar y inc lu de d h er ina bilit y t o com m un i ca te wit h po lice, a nd t he o ffi cer ’s aw ar enes s o f her s ev ere di sab il ity). Although defendant ’s IQ was cha racterized as “

borderli ne” by Dr. Zoo t, it is un

contro verted and sti

pula ted that de fen da nt wa s fit to stand tri

al

. Cf Braggs , 209 Ill . 2d at 51 7 ( de f en da nt’s un f itn es s to st and t r ial d ue t o men t al re ta rda ti on a f ac tor i n f ind ing con f es si on involu ntary ). Ourconcl

usion is further supported by

the trial cou rt ’s finding th at defen

dant’s i ntell ectual l im itations did n ot render her subs equ ent co nfe ss io n a t t he sh er iff’ s d ep ar t men t inv o lu nt ar y, whi ch
su gg es ts that t he trial

co ur t implic it ly

f oun d that def en da nt’s disa b il ity was no t so se ve r e a s t o r en de rhe rinc ap ab le o f mak ing a v o lu ntar y co nfessio n. In exam in in g the legal

ity and duration of

the detention an

d que st ioni ng, as w e no t ed a bove , it is unco nt ro ver t ed t hat defend ant arrivedat the Center of her own f ree will and not by

pol ice tra n sp ort. Furth er, it i s undi sputed that t he questionin g sessi on durin g whi ch defend ant ga ve h er in

cul pator y statement was of sh ort duration–15 mi nutes or less–an

d that it was ai

med prim aril y a t app rising d efenda nt in her role as

a parent of K.S.’s s tatement that she had been ab used and in a ss ur ing t he sa fe t y o f the mino r. Dur ing t his sho rt sess ion, defend ant was al

ternativel y que stioned by

Jo hnson al one an d, f or-20- so me period, Reuttiger and A ckerson al so were in

the room
. However, all thr ee w er e no t in the r o o m f or t he ent ire q ues t ioning
sess ion. A ga

in , w e a l so n ote th at th i s q ue sti oni ng oc curred in

an interv i ew room at the C en

ter and not i

n a pol i ce s tation

. We also find tha t defend ant wa s n ot the su bj ec t of an y ph y si ca l or me ntal abuse b y h erque sti one rs , i ncl udi ng the ex i stenc e of thr ea ts or pro mises. The evi

dence is uncontroverted that defenda nt was told that her stateme nts that K .S. had not suffered abuse wer e no t believed, and that it w as p os sible tha t K.S . w ou ld be removed fro m defendant’s care i f it was i n the b est in

terests o f the m

in or t o ensure h er

saf ety

. However, the record is devoid of an y threat that defen

dant’s ch il dren
wo uld be rem

oved because sh

e f ai led to conf ess . In addi tion, the fa

ct that defend ant first denied t he abu se a nd t hen cha nged her st at ement indi cated th at s h e un de

rs tood th e s itua ti on an d w i sh ed to av oi d th e consequenc es of h

er permi tt in g her daughter to be f

urther abus ed by Deck. In fact, durin

g her subs equ ent video t ape d st at ement , d efenda nt ca nd idly adm

itted that she w as t elling

the trut h ab out what happen ed between K .S. a nd De ck beca us e s he not only wan ted to keep her daughter away f rom h im , but a l so wan ted to pre v en

t h im f rom victimizing ot her y

oung girls, such as

her daughter’s f

rien d. Fi na lly,
we note that although defe ndan t was not t old thatshe c ou ld leave t he Cen ter, she n ever i ndi cated a des i

re to ter m in ate t he qu est ioning and leav e the premises. We h av e ex am in ed th e p ar ti cu la r c ircu msta nces sur ro unding defendant’s questioning, as we ll as her rel evan t personal
c haracteristics, an d c o nc lud e t ha t she wa s no t ind uc ed t o make a n involunt ar y

incul patory statem en t. We h old that the incul patory st at ement ma

de by defen dant durin

g the second qu est i oni

ng se ss i on at th e C en

ter wa s v ol un tar y a nd no t t he pr od uct of p olice c oe rc ion. Ac co r di ng ly, t he ap pe llat e c o ur t er r ed in hol di ng that the i

ncul patory st at ement ma

de by defen da nt at t he Ce nt er was involunt ar y and therefore i

nadm is si bl e. Because we hol

d tha t the i ncul patory st at ement made by de fendant dur ing the

se con d ques ti oni

ng se ss i on a t the Cente r di d not vi ol at e Miranda an

d w asmade k

n owi n gl y an d vol un tar il y , i t was pr o pe r ly ad miss ible at tr ia

l. The refore, t he se co nd in

cul pator y statement m

ade by defendant t hereafter at t he sheriff ’s dep ar t ment could not be tai nted by the prop erl y obta ined f i rs t sta tem en t. Th e v al i di ty of the con f es si on-21- ma de by defenda nt at the sheri ff ’s departme

nt has not been questi

oned abse nt its r elat ionship t o t he ear lier inculpa t or y sta t ement pr ovid ed by defen dant at the Center. Because wehold that the fi rst confessi

on at t he Cen t er was valid, t he ap pellat e co ur t er re d by hold ing t hat t he second conf

essi on at the sheri

ff ’s departme

nt was tain

ted.

CONCLUSION Fo r t he fo re go ing re aso ns, t he judg ment of t he ap pe llat e c o ur t is reversed, an d t he jud gme nt o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Will Co un t y is aff irm ed.
Appellate court judgment revers ed; circuit court judgment affirmed.