IMPORTANT NOTICE 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION 

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." 

PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 

PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), 

THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE 

CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER 

CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, 

UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, 

RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR 

CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED 

OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE 

BEFORE THE)COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION 

BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED 

DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE 

ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE 

DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE 

ACTION. 
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 

Suprrtur Gild of 17,firttfuritv 

2014-SC-000140-MR 

AARON RASHAD CAMPBELL APPELLANT 

ON APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT 

V. HONORABLE PAMELA GOODWINE, JUDGE 

NO. 10-CR-01585-001 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE 

AND 2014-SC-000360-TG 

AARON RASHAD CAMPBELL APPELLANT 

ON TRANSFER FROM COURT OF APPEALS 

V. CASE NO. 2014-CA-000482-MR 

FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT NO. 11-CR-00639 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE 

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT 

AFFIRMING 

Aaron Rashad Campbell conditionally pled guilty in two separate but 

related robbery prosecutions.' Both prosecutions were for first-degree robbery 

of the same victim, separated in time by a number of months. Under the terms 

of his guilty plea, Campbell now challenges the trial court's denial of his motion 

110-CR-01585-001: the "2010 robbery"; and 11-CR-00 639: the "2009 

robbery." 
to suppress his confessions in both prosecutions. 2Campbell's sole argument 

is that repeated implicit promises of leniency during interrogation overbore his 

will, essentially coercing his confession. We disagree and find Campbell was 

neither promised leniency nor was his will overborne by police conduct. 

Campbell's convictions and related sentences, therefore, are affirmed. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. 

In August 2009, intruders entered David Norris's home, tied him up, hit 

him in the head, and robbed him of $70,000. A police investigation failed to 

produce any suspects for over a year. 

Norris was robbed at home again in October 2010. This time, two men 

entered his home, tied him up, and made off with his credit card. Police began 

another investigation, aided in this instance by surveillance videos of 

individuals using credit cards at local stores and by Crimestoppers. Within a 

short time, Michael Washington emerged as a suspect. 

Washington eventually confessed to the crime and implicated Campbell, 

his cousin, as the other participant. After arresting Campbell, police 

questioned him about the robbery multiple times. Ultimately, Campbell 

confessed to being involved. In light of the information gained from Campbell's 

statement, police became suspicious that Washington and Campbell were 

2Given the length of Campbell's sentence for the 2010 robbery, he appeals as a 

matter of right. See Ky.Const. § 110(2)(b). Campbell's appeal for the 2009 robbery 

does not meet the requirements of § 110(2)(b) but was consolidated with the 

2010 robbery appeal due to the extent of overlapping facts and arguments. 

2 
involved in the earlier robbery of Norris's home. Forensic evidence verified this 

suspicion. Campbell eventually confessed to the second robbery, as well. 

Campbell was separately indicted for each robbery of Norris's home. 

Before trial, Campbell filed a motion to suppress both of his confessions on 

grounds that police made promises of leniency and coerced him into 

confessing. The trial court denied Campbell's motions following a hearing. As 

a result, Campbell entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to 

appeal the trial court's decision. For the 2010 robbery, Campbell pleaded 

guilty to second-degree robbery and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. 

And for the 2009 robbery, Campbell pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and 

being a second-degree Persistent Felony Offender (PFO 2) and, accordingly, was 

sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. Campbell's sentences were ordered 

to run consecutively. The only issue now on appeal for our review is the trial 

court's denial of Campbell's suppression motion. 

II. ANALYSIS. 

Appellate review of trial court rulings on motions to suppress is twopronged: (1) Any factual findings by the trial court are conclusive as long as 

they are supported by substantial evidence; and (2) The application of the law 

to those facts, however, is reviewed de novo. 3 

The fundamental concern for affording a defendant due process 

mandates that confessions or other statements procured through coercive 

means be excluded. Generally speaking, a defendant's speech is tainted with 

3 See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 691 (1996). 

3 
coercion when his "will has been overborne and his capacity for selfdetermination critically impaired . . . ."4A statement is admissible, in other 

words, when that statement was made voluntarily, i.e., "the product of an 

essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker". 5When reviewing an 

allegedly coerced confession, we attempt to answer three points: "(1) whether 

the police activity was 'objectively coercive'; (2) whether the coercion overbore 

the will of the defendant; and (3) whether the defendant showed that the 

coercive police activity was the 'crucial motivating factor' behind the 

defendant's confession." 6The totality of the circumstances, including "the 

characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation[,]" aid us in 

this analysis. 

The coercion Campbell alleges today is not of the physical variety. 

Campbell was not mistreated, abused, denied food or rest, or mishandled in 

any way. Of course, "coercion can be mental as well as physical . . . ."8After 

all, the "blood of the accusedis not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional 

inquisition."9 

It is acceptable for police to use a certain degree of psychological tactics 

in obtaining a suspect's confession. Various courts, including the United 

4 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225-26 (1973). 

5 Bailey v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 296, 300 (Ky. 2006) (quoting 

Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 225). 

6 Id. at 301 (quoting Henson v. Commonwealth, 20 S.W.3d 466, 469 (Ky. 

1999)). 

7 Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 226 

8 Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 206 (1960). 

9 Id. 
States Supreme Court, have allowed police to "play on the suspect's 

sympathies or explain that honesty might be the best policy for a criminal who 

hopes for leniency from the state[.]" 10This Court has, for example, permitted 

police to engage in strategic deception by misrepresenting the strength of the 

evidence against the suspect. 11Promises, whether of leniency or otherwise, 

bring about somewhat special concerns with regard to a voluntary confession. 

That said, courts are in agreement that police "may validly make some 

representations to a defendant or may discuss cooperation without rendering 

the resulting confession involuntary. " 12More specifically, courts have 

permitted police to "initiate conversations on cooperation, . . . promise to make 

a defendant's cooperation known to the prosecutor, and . . . even be able to 

make and breach certain promises without rendering a resulting confession 

involuntary." 13 

Campbell alleges that his mental will was overborne as a result of the 

police's repeated promises of leniency in exchange for his confession and 

threats of increased punishment if he did not confess. Campbell also alleges 

he was coerced because the police threatened his girlfriend. We find 

Campbell's arguments meritless. 

10 Miller v. Fenton, 796 F.2d 598, 605 (3d Cir. 1986) (compiling cases). 

11 Springer v. Commonwealth, 998 S.W.2d 439 (Ky. 1999). 

12 United States v. Shears, 762 F.2d 397, 401-02 (4th Cir. 1985) (compiling 

cases). 

13 Id. (compiling cases). 

5 
Campbell's interrogations and related discussions with police were calm 

affairs with neither Campbell nor police ever becoming agitated. The 

interrogations were conducted in a casual manner with routine breaks. 

Campbell was permitted to smoke cigarettes, drink sodas, and contact family 

members. In fact, at one point, Campbell thanked police for being so kind to 

him. 

Before reviewing the respective interrogations, it is important to mention 

that Campbell was given Miranda14 warnings at the beginning of both 

interrogations and acknowledged he understood those rights. The common 

Miranda recitation warns the defendant that anything he says can and will be 

used against him. As a result, Campbell entered the interrogation with the 

knowledge that if he confessed to the robberies, he could be prosecuted. In 

order for Campbell's confessions to be rendered involuntary, the friendly 

demeanor and supposed promises by police would have to overcome 

Campbell's belief that the Commonwealth intended to prosecute him and 

sentence him to jail, if convicted. 

Police first met with Campbell in November 2010 following his arrest. 

The focus of this interrogation was the 2010 robbery. During this 

interrogation, the police continually emphasized that they were not talking with 

Campbell to determine what happened; rather, they wanted to know why 

Campbell had robbed Norris. Consistent with this mission, police requested 

Campbell unburden himself and try to provide context to the robberies 

14 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 

6 
because, on their face, they looked bad. The police acknowledged that 

prosecutors often ask questions such as: "What was he like?"; "Was he 

remorseful?"; "Was he honest?"; or "Did he seem like he cared?" Police 

reminded Campbell they needed him to be honest with them about why the 

robbery occurred so they could answer those questions. Throughout the 

interrogation, police reminded Campbell that his best bargaining chip was his 

honesty and being completely honest would look better than lying. 

Campbell expressed concern for Michael and sought a deal for him 

because Campbell felt as if Michael's participation was his fault. Police 

reminded Campbell that Michael had already provided a statement and his 

statement aligned neatly with the forensic evidence. Police then counseled that 

if his statement differed, he or Michael must be lying and that would mean no 

deal. The overall tone of the interrogations was far short of coercion. 

At some point before Campbell's pretrial hearing for the 2010 robberies, 

he cut his ankle monitor and fled. Campbell was eventually apprehended by 

U. S. Marshals in April 2011 at his girlfriend's house. 15Following his arrest, 

15Campbell was arrested in his girlfriend's apartment while she was home. 

After he was handcuffed, the U. S. Marshals took Campbell's girlfriend into a nearby 

bedroom, shut the door, and proceeded to have a conversation with her regarding 

Campbell and her culpability for harboring a fugitive. The evidence is unclear whether 

Campbell heard this conversation. He argues on appeal that the police were 

objectively coercive in taking his girlfriend behind closed doors and "threatening" her 

with prosecution if she did not disclose information. This argument is baseless. There 

was no threat—Campbell's girlfriend certainly could have been prosecuted for 

harboring a fugitive. After all, Campbell was arrested in her home. Regardless, 

Campbell is unable to present evidence that he heard the conversation or that it had 

any impact on his decision to confess to police. 

The same can be said for Campbell's argument regarding his nephew's 

mother. Apparently, police were quite rude to her when they arrived at her home 

7 
Campbell requested to talk with the detectives he had spoken with previously. 

This time, Campbell wished to speak about the 2009 robbery. The following 

exchange, in our view, dispels any notion that the interrogation was conducted 

in an objectively coercive manner: 

Campbell: Let me ask you a question. If I tell you, how are 

you going to be able to help me out? 

Detective: I'll be honest with you, I can't make you any 

promises saying I'll get you this . . . . I don't 

mind, the way I'm working is if you're . . . . 

Campbell: I'm not worried about calling a lawyer. I'm not 

worried about that . . . . 

Detective: The way I work is if you're totally honest with me 

and you lay it all out on the table and you give 

me everything, I have no problem going to bat 

for you. You're a young guy . . . you're a nice 

guy, Aaron and you've made some mistakes. 

And that's all they are—mistakes. . . . You're 

not a bad guy. You made a mistake. 

Campbell: I'm not gonna bullshit you. Only thing I'm 

afraid of is, say I tell you and nothing happens 

for me. 

This is how the second interrogation began. Campbell set the tone early that 

he wanted something in return for any potential confession. No promises were 

made to him. In fact, the police explicitly acknowledged no promises could be 

made. We fail to see any coercion with regard to Campbell's interrogation 

relating to the 2009 robbery. 

looking for Campbell and were quick to remind her that she could be prosecuted for 

harboring a fugitive if she was not truthful about his whereabouts. Campbell was not 

in the home at this point, so we are unsure how this interaction had any bearing on 

Campbell's decision to confess. 

8 
At what point promises of leniency, implied or explicit, reach coercion is 

an interesting question—a question the Supreme Court has offered somewhat 

mixed 16guidance on over time. It is a question, however, that we need not 

answer to find Campbell voluntarily decided to confess. Police offered to assist 

Campbell, do everything in their power, or talk to the prosecutor on his behalf; 

but, for the majority of his discussions with police, Campbell was in control. 

Campbell actively bargained with police, seeking leniency for his cousin, help 

with lowering his bail, and participation in the home incarceration program. 17 

 Having an informed and candid conversation with police about future 

punishment hardly seems like the conduct of an individual whose will has been 

overborne. 

16 See Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 557-58 (1897) (holding promises of 

leniency or police comments intended to instill hope of leniency constitute coercion: 

"In this court the general rule that the confession must be free and voluntary—that is, 

not produced by inducements engendering either hope or fear—is settled by the 

authorities referred to at the outset."); Hutto v. Ross, 429 U.S. 28, 30 (1976) (applying 

Bram in plea bargain context); but see Arizona v. Fulminate, 499 U.S. 279, 285 (1991) 

(distinguishing Bram because it "does not state the standard for determining the 

voluntariness of a confession . . . .") 

17These questions indicate Campbell's knowledge and experience with the 

criminal justice system. The trial court took this into consideration when denying 

Campbell's motion to suppress. On appeal, Campbell mentions that this was 

improper. But the citation provided by Campbell provides little support for his 

position. To the contrary, it seems the case law supports the trial court's position. 

After all, the totality of the circumstances includes a review of the accused, as well as 

the various aspects of interrogation. Various courts have explicitly acknowledged—

some even stressed the importance of—the role a defendant's prior experience plays in 

assessing whether a confession was voluntary. See, e.g., Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 

156, 185 (1953) ("The limits [of permissible questioning tactics] in any case depend 

upon a weighing of the circumstances of pressure against the power of resistance of 

the person confessing. What would be overpowering to the weak of will or mind might 

be utterly ineffective against an experienced criminal.") overruled on other grounds by 

Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964); United States v. Oglesby, 764 F.2d 1273, 1278 

(7th Cir. 1985). 

9 
Receiving something in return for a confession was not a concept injected 

into the situation by police, at least not solely. And police stopped short of ever 

truly promising Campbell anything, outside of simply offering to talk to the 

prosecutor and present Campbell's side of the situation. There was no 

guarantee of leniency, and we are unconvinced Campbell believed leniency was 

forthcoming. In any event, Campbell fails to offer any indication that his hopes 

of leniency served as a "crucial motivating factor" 18in his decision to confess. 

While we can never be certain of a defendant's subjective motivations to 

confess, a review of the evidence indicates it is more plausible that Campbell 

confessed because he wanted to protect his cousin and he was remorseful for 

the troubles he was putting his family through. In the end, it may be fair to 

say Campbell's confession was made in the hope of leniency; but we cannot say 

from our review of this record that Campbell confessed in response to any 

promise of leniency. 19 

Police comments to Campbell most likely served as an impetus for him to 

come clean about the robberies. But we simply are unable to hold that the 

police's "non-answers," as Campbell labels them, exerted enough psychological 

pressure to overcome the "will of a mature, experienced man, who was 

suffering from no mental or physical illness" 20and was not interrogated for an 

unreasonable time or in an unreasonable manner. 

18 Bailey, 194 S.W.3d at 301. 

19 Miller, 796 F.2d at 610. 

20 Id. at 613. 

10 
III. CONCLUSION. 

Because Campbell's will was not overborne during his various 

discussions with police, the trial court did not err in denying Campbell's 

motion to suppress. We affirm the judgment. 

All sitting. All concur. 

11 
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: 

Julia Karol Pearson 

Kathleen Kallaher Schmidt 

Assistant Public Advocates 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: 

Jack Conway 

Attorney General of Kentucky 

Heather Michelle Fryman 

Assistant Attorney General 

12