1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r:

____

____ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: O ct obe r 16, 201 4 4 N O. 32, 460 5 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, 6 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 7 v
. 8 CHRIS TALAYUMPTEW A, 9 De fendant-Appellee. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF McKINLE Y C OUN TY 11 Lo ui s E . D eP au li Jr . , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 Gary K. King, Attorney

Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 M. V ictoria W ilson , A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 fo r Appe llant 17 Law O ffice s of the Public De fender 18 Jorge A. Alvar ado, Chief Public De fender 19 W ill O’ Connell, Assistant Appellate D efender 20 Santa Fe , N M 21 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Judge. 3 { 1} T he S ta te ap pe al s f ro m a n or de r of

the dis tr ic t c ourt su

ppr es sin g st at em en ts 4 m ade by De fe n d an t during p olice question ing. T he district court supp ressed 5 De fendant ’s s t at em ents on th e basis that they we re the product of coerc ive police 6 co nduc t i n th e fo rm of

pr om ise s of

le nie nc y a nd w er e inv olu ntary

und er the tot al ity 7 of the c ir cu m stanc es . W e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt. 8 BACKGRO UND 9 { 2} The a lleged victim gave a SAFE h o u s e interview in w hich she accused 10 De fendant of sexual assault. Of ficer s from the McK inley CountySherif f’ s Of fice le ft 11 m es sa ge s a t D ef

en da nt’ s ho m e tha t the y w an te d to spe ak w ithhim , a nd D ef

en da nt 12 cam e to the S he ri ff

’ s O ff ic e voluntari ly , an d agr ee d to spe ak w ith pol ic e. D ef en da nt 13 w as que sti one d th er e by tw o po lic e of

fi ce rs , A nth ony

A shl ey a nd O w enP en a, f

or 14 around nin ety m inutes. During the course of the interview , D efendant m ade a w ritten 15 sta te m en t, in the fo rm of anapol ogy le tte r, a nd o ra l st at em en ts. D ef en da nt m ove d to 16 supp re ss the state m en ts arg uing th at the y w er e inv olu ntary

be ca use pol ic e did

not 1 7 g i v e h i m M

ira nda warnings p rior to question ing him and because they

we re induced 18 by prom ises of leniency

by the police.2

1 { 3} A ft er

a n e vid en tiary

he ar ing , a t w hic h bo th off ic er s tes tif

ie d, an d re vie w of

th e 2 tr an sc ri pt of the int er vie w , the dis tr ic t co urt or de re d D ef en da nt ’s st at em en ts 3 supp re sse d. I n it s w ri tte n or de r, the dis tr ic t co urt fi rs t r ej ec te d D ef en da nt’ s M

ira nda 4 a r g u m e n t , f

i n d i n g t h a t h e w a s n o t i n c u s t o d y du r i n g t h e i n t e rv i e w , a nd Mir an da 5 the re fo re did not ap ply
. T he dis tr ic t co ur t spe ci fi ca lly

f ound that D ef en da nt w as not 6 in c ust ody be ca

use he w as inf

orm ed at the out se t of the int er vie w that he w as f

re e to 7 le av e, the of

fi ce rs tol d hi m

that he w oul d not be ar

re ste d that

day , a nd the of

fi ce rs did 8 not thr ea te n him
. H ow ev er , the co urt fo und tha t his sta te m en ts were n oneth el es s 9 invo lu nt ary

be ca use of pol ic e ove rr ea ch ing in the f orm of im pli ed pr om ise s of 10 le nie nc y . T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that i m m ed ia te ly a t th e start

of que sti oni ng, the 11 of fi ce rs be ga n m ak ing im

pli ed pr om ise s of

le nie nc y , w hic h c ont inu ed thr ough out

the 12 int er view
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that the m

ult itu de of

the im pli ed pr om ise s of 1 3 l e n i e n c y o u t w e i g h e d o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t mi g h t i n d i c a t e t h e s t a t e men t s we r e v o l u n t a ry. 14 The Sta te ap pe al s. Ad di ti on al fact s ar e in cl ud edin th e d is cu ss io n b el ow. 15 A N A LY SI S 16 { 4} T he S ta te c ha lle nge s bo th the dis tr ic t co urt’ s de te rm ina tio n th at of fi ce rs m ad e 17 im plied prom ises of leniency and its ruling that the im pl i ed p ro m ises of leniency 1 8 o u t we i g h ed o t h erfa ct o rs t h at m i g h t i n d i ca t e th at t h e st at emen t s we re v o l u n t ar y. “ We 19 review de novo the volu ntariness of confessions.” Sta te v . E va ns , 200 9- N MS C- 027,3

1 ¶ 32, 146 N
. M. 319 , 210 P
. 3d 2 16; se e als o State v . L eeson , 201 1- N MC A -0 68, ¶ 21, 2 149 N.M. 823, 255 P.3d 401 (sam e). “ Voluntariness m eans fre edom fr o m official 3 coercion.” Sta te v . San de rs , 2000- N MS C- 032, ¶ 6, 129 N
. M. 728 , 13 P
. 3d 4 60 4 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio ns o m itt ed ). Pr om ise s of le nie nc y on the part of 5 po li ce ca n b e co erci ve an d ma y r e n d e r a s ub se qu en t s ta te m en t i nv ol un ta ry . See 6 E va ns , 2009-NMS C-027, ¶ 42 ( notin g that threats and prom ises m ay rise to the level 7 of co er ci ve be ha vio r by the pol ic e) ; se e als o State v . T ind le , 198 6- N MC A -0 35, ¶

25, 8 104 N
. M. 195, 718 P. 2d 7 05 ( sta tin g th at a n e xpr es s pr om ise of

le nie nc y “ re nde rs a 9 co nf es sio n invol unt ar

y as am at te r of

law ”) ; State v. G utierrez , 20 11 -NMSC -0 24 , ¶ 1 0 2 5 , 1 5 0 N. M
. 2 3 2 , 2 5 8 P
. 3 d 1 0 2 4 ( s t a t i n g t h a t “un l i k e a n e x p r e s s p r o mi s e o f l e n i e n c y, 11 which can r ender a c onfession inadm issib le as a m atter of law, evidence of an im plied 12 pr om ise is onl y

af ac tor in the tot al ity

of the c ir cu m stanc es that c ourts c onsi de r in 13 de te rm in in g wh et he r a co nf es si on is vo lu nt ary”). 14 Im plied P rom ises of Lenie ncy 15 { 5} W e fi rs t a d dr es s th e St at e’ s arg um en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de te rm ini ng 16 that poli ce m ade im

plied prom ises of leniency during the interview. “ The te st in su ch 17 a ca se is ‘ w he the r the ac cu se d c oul d r ea sona bly ha ve inf er re d apr om ise goi ng t o th e 18 puni shm ent for th e crim e to be confessed.’ ” Sta te v . M unoz , 1998 -N MS C- 048, ¶ 34, 19 126 N
. M. 535, 972 P. 2d 8 47 ( quot ing Sta te v . W ic km an , 193 5- N MS C- 035, ¶ 36, 394

1 N.M . 1 9 8 , 4 3 P
. 2 d 9 3 3 ). Ou r r ev i ew o f t h e t ra n s cr i p ts up p o rt s t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 2 de te rm ina ti on that the of fi ce rs m ad e num er ous im pli ed pr om ise s of

le nie nc y to 3 D ef en da nt thr ough out

the int er vi e w i n e xc ha nge f

or state m en ts tha t a cc or de d w iththe 4 al le ge d vi ct im ’ s ve rs ionof e ve nts . 5 { 6} D ef

en da nt r es pond ed to the of fi ce rs ’ que sti ons by

say ing that he c oul d no t 6 re m em be r w ha t ha

ppe ne d be ca

use he w as int oxi ca te d w he n the al le ge d i nc id en ts 7 oc curr ed
. In re spon se , the of fi ce rs re pe at ed ly tol d De fe ndant the y w oul d be m ee tin g 8 w iththe dis tr ic t at to rn ey , that hi s c la im s no t t o r em em be r w er e le ga lly

inv al id, a nd 9 tha t the y

ha d th e ab ili ty

to inf lue nc e the dis tr ic t a tto rn ey w ith re spe ct to the le ve l of 10 ch arg es D ef

en da nt f ac ed
. A m ong oth er

sim ilar sta te m en ts, O ff ic er P en a tol d 11 D ef en da nt: 12 Y ou’ re giv ing us n oth ing a nd tha t’ s w ha t we’ re gonna [s ic ] go t o th e 13 D.A.s wit h .
. . is th at he ga ve us no th in g . . . h e tri ed to us e th e o ld
. . . 14 I d on’t rem em

ber because I wa s intox icated defense
. . . . And t h at ’s 15 w ha t w e’ re gon na te ll th e D
. A
. . . . . H e cam e in and h e ga ve us a 16 co nv en ie nt ex cu se . . . . Oh I was dru nk
. . . . Oh I d on ’t rem em be r . . . . 17 It

c oul da[ sic ] ha

ppe ne d, but

I don ’ t kn owif

it did
. . . or an ythi ng l ike 18 tha t. . . . S o if y ou do re m em be r w ha t ha

ppe ne d, j ust

c om e cl ean w ithus 19
. . . . W e’re tryin g to h el p y ou h er e . . . . O ka y , but w e can on ly

he lp 2 0 you s o m

u ch
. . . . Ok ay, I ca n ’t g o t o t h e D
. A
. s a n db e l i k e h ey l et ’s 2 1
. . . you kn o w l et ’s cu t t h i s g u y a b re ak o r . . . o r l et ’s . . . yo ukn o w l et ’s 22 do this or

. . . le t’ s uh
. . . you kn ow le t’ s th ink about it se co nd [ sic ] if 23 y ou won’ t tell us what happened cuz [sic] I can’ t go to the D. A. with that 24
. . . . Okay , I can’ t . . . . The D. A. ain’ t gonn a [sic] buy that either.5

1 { 7} T he of

fi ce rs a lso be ga n to inf

orm D ef en da nt tha t he wa s fa ci ng m ult ipl e fe lon y 2 ch ar ge s and tha t the y

c oul d he lp him , but onl y if he r em em

be re d. O ff

ic er P en a tol d 3 D ef en da nt: 4 Okay

. . . . I trie d to help y ou here, I tried to give y ou a life line, I tried 5 to help, I trie d to giv e y ou th at l i fe p re server f or y ou to h elp y ourself, 6 y ou d on’ t w an na[ sic ] ta ke it tha t’ s fin e. . . . I’ ll .
. . w e . . . I nve sti ga tor 7 Ashley

will go forw ard to the .
. . to the D. A. s with w hat we have based 8 of

f w ha t he r . . . w ha t sh e’ s say ing ‘ cu z [s ic ] y ou d on’ t w an t t o r ec an t 9 an yth i n g s h e’s s ayi n g b y ju s t s ayi n g I was i n t o x i ca t e d , I d o n ’t 10 re m em

be r. . . that’ s f

ine , if that’ s . . . tha t’ s the r oa d y ou w an na[ sic ] go 11 down . . . that’s f ine, okay
. . . when the w arrant com es and when w e’ re 12 put tin g y ou in ja il
. . . f or m ult ipl e fe lon ie s ok ay

. . . don ’ t say

oh w ai t a 13 m inute, I wanna [sic] talk now, because that’ s gonn a [sic] be gone, once 14 y ou g et

c uf fe d and p ut i n j ai l. 15 Inthe spe ci fi c ex ch an ge c ite d by the dis tr ic t c ourt, th e of fi ce rs a lso dis cu sse d th e 1 6 ra n g e o f p ri s o n t er m s fo r d i ff er en td eg re es o f f

el o n i es i n r e s p o n s e t o De fe n d an t ’s 17 questio n about how m uch j ail tim e he wa s facing. The following discussion then 18 oc curr ed : 19 De fendant: Is th er e a wa y I ca n like
. . . . The only way I can 20 he lp m y se lf is to r em em

be r, r igh t? 21 O ff

ic er P en a: T ha t w oul d be abig he lp. 22 De fendant: And then if I r em em ber a nd that is what happened 23 I’ m sti ll loo kin g at those r igh t? 24 O ff

ic er Pe na : N o[ t] ne ce ssari ly , uh
. . . it’ s sti ll
. . . w e sti ll ha ve to 2 5
. . . i t ’s n o tl i k e we s i th e r e a n dwe ’ r e l i k e o k a y, 26 we’re go nn a [s i c ] ch arg e h im forth is ok ay

. . . we6

1 n e e dt o g e te v e ryt h i n g d o n e . . . w e s t i l l g o ts o me 2 interviews to do and stu ff like that, w e’ re gonna [sic] 3 do
. . . w e ’ r e g on na [ si c ] i nt e rvi e w e ve ry

bo dy t hen 4 we take our w hol e ca se an d w e giv e it to the D.A.s 5 an d t he D.A.s is th e on e who sa y . . . th is an d th at . . . 6 o k a y? 7 O f

f i c e r A sh l e y : [S] eriousness of t he c r i m e i s w a y up he r e , we can 8 he lp e ve ntu al ly br ing it ba ck dow n to m ay be a lm ost 9 do wn t o n ot hi ng . . . 10 O ff

ic er P en a: T ha t als o depe nds on . . . us bei ng abl e to go to the 11 D.A.s . . . bei ng ab le to say to t he jud ge y ou kn ow, 12 he wa s very . . . sorry it wa s an accident, it wa s [a] 13 stupi d m istake that he did while he wa s intox icated 14
. . . he c am e in h e w as hon es t a bout it, he w as up 1 5 f r o n tab o u ti t. . . h e d i dr e me mb e r f i n a l l y, h e c a me 16 ba ckin an d s ai d h ey th is is what I rem em

be red
. 17 { 8} T he se statem en ts and the oth er s li ke the m

c onst itu te im

pli ed pr om ise s of 18 le nie nc y

be ca use the ir im port w as that D ef

en da nt w oul d be ar

re ste d onse ri ous fe lon y 19 ch ar ge s if

he c ont inu ed

to cl ai m ala ck of m em or y , but th at if he m ad e ce rt ai n 20 adm issio ns, office rs w ould intercede w ith the district attorney on his b ehalf, and that 21 th ey ha d th e ab il it y to ha ve ch arg es red uc ed or no t bro ug h t a t a ll
. Se e M unoz , 22 1998 -N MS C- 048, ¶ 34 (s ta tin g tha t an im pli ed pr om ise of le nie nc y oc curs w he n th e 23 ac cu se d c oul d r ea sona bly ha ve inf er re d apr om ise goi ng t o th e puni shm ent fo r the 24 cr im e to b e co nf

es se d) ; cf

. Sta te v . L obato , 200 6- N MC A -0 51, ¶ 18, 139 N
. M. 431 , 25 134 P. 3d 1 22 ( fi ndi ng n o im pli ed pr om ise of

le nie nc y w he re the of

fi ce r tol d th e7

1 de fe ndant he wou ld ge t tre atm en t i f he c onf es se d, but did not te ll the de fe ndant h e 2 would rece ive treatm ent instead of prison tim e). 3 { 9} T he S ta te c ha ra ct er iz es the of fi ce rs as m er el y sugg es tin g to D ef en da nt tha t hi s 4 claim s not to rem em

b er we re not believable and that cooperation would b e m ore 5 he lp fu l to hi m

th an de ni al
. Se e E

va ns , 200 9- N MS C- 027, ¶ 43 ( “ [T ] hr ea ts tha t m er el y 6 hig hli ght

pot en tia l r ea l c onsequ en ce s, or a re ‘ ad j ur at ion s to te ll the tr

uth , ’ a re not 7 ch ar ac te ri ze d a s im

pe rm iss ibl y

c oe rc ive
. ”)
. T he S ta te a lso a rg ue s that D ef en da nt 8 co uld not ha ve inf

er re d a pr om ise of le nie nc y be ca use the of fi ce rs tol d hi m

that any 9 charging decision wa s ultim ately up to the district attorney
. De fendant counters that 10 O ff ic er A shl ey ’ s st at em en t tha t the c ha rg es co uld be re duc ed “ m ay be dow n to a lm ost 11 noth ing” rose to the level of an express prom ise of leniency , and the statem ents are 12 th eref or e in ad m is si bl e a s a matt er o f la w. Se e Lo bat o , 200 6- N MC A -0 51, ¶ 19 13 (stating that an express prom ise of leniency will re nder a confessio n inadm issib le as 14 a m atter of law)
. 15 { 10} W e cannot ag re e w ith D ef en da nt’ s ar gum en t tha t Of fi ce r A shl ey ’ s st at em en t 16 rose to the level of an express prom ise because it wa s not an un equivo cal guarantee 17 th atDefen da nt wou ld rece iv e le ni en cy if h e g av e a s ta te m en t. Se e St ate v . M unoz , 18 1990 -N MC A -1 09, ¶

13, 111 N
. M. 118 , 802 P.2 d 23 (sta tin g th at apr om ise of 19 leniency

wa s im plied wher e the office r m erely speculated about what m ight h appen8

1 i f t h e d ef

en d an twa s co o p e r a t i v e ). Ho we v er , we al s o d i s ag re e w i t h t h e S t at e’s 2 as se rt ionthat the of

fi ce rs onl y

sug ge ste d that D ef

en da nt cou ld hel p hi m se lf by be ing 3 co ope rativ e. T he tr an sc ri pt c ont ai ns num er ous sta te m en ts b y the of fi ce rs thr ough out 4 the interview, the eff

ect of w hich w as to say that if De fendant gave a statem ent they 5 would act on his behalf and had the ability to get the charges re duced. T his was m ore 6 than a m ere offer

to bring Defendant’ s cooperatio n to the attention of the district 7 at to rn ey , whi ch co ur ts ha ve fou n d a ccep tabl e. Se e Sta te v . San de rs , 8 2 0 0 0 -N M SC -0 3 2 , ¶1 0 (s t a t i n g t h at “ m er el y p ro m i s i n g t o b ri n g a d ef en d an t ’s 9 co op erat io n t o t he att en ti on of t he pro se cu to r is no t o bjec ti on ab le ”). 10 { 11} A ddi tio na lly , the fa ct tha t the of fi ce rs tol d D ef

en da nt tha t the f

ina l de ci sio n on 11 charg es was up to the district attorney does not m ean that there w as no official 12 p r o mi s e o f le ni en cy . See State v. Be navidez , 1 9 7 5
- N M C A
- 0 1 3 , ¶ 7 , 8 7 N
. M
. 223 , 1 3 531 P. 2d9 5 7 ( s t a t i n g t h a ta n u n l a w f u l i n du c e m e n tt h a tr e n d e r s ac o n f e s sio n 14 inv olu ntary ne ed not be m ad e by a pe rs on i n an a ct ua l po sit ionof

auth or ity , but

the 15 sit ua tio n m ust be suc h th at

the pe rs on c onf

es sing m igh t r ea sona

bly c onsi de r the 16 pr om iso r as ape rs on a ble to af fo rd him a id)
. T he of

fi ce rs ’ oth er s ta te m en ts d ur ing 17 the interview gave rise to the understandi ng that, if D efendant m ade a statem ent, they 1 8 h a d t h e ab i l i t y t o i n f

l u e n c e t h e d i s t r i c ta t t o rn e y, a n dD e f e n d a n tw o u l df

a c e l e s s t i me 19 in prison , if any . The reasonableness of this un derstanding wa s reinforce d by Of ficer9

1 Pe nata lki ng a

bout a nothe r sus pe ct

w ho “ fi na lly

r em em be re d” a nd co nfes se d to 2 bur glary , w ho i t “ sti ll w orke d out for ” bec au se the co nf es sio n gave O ff

ic er P en a the 3 ab il it y to arg ue forlen ie nc y wit h t he di st ric t at to r ne y . Cf

. Sta te v . B arr , 4 2009 -N MSC- 024, ¶¶ 10, 27, 146 N.M
. 3 0 1 , 210 P. 3d 19 8 (finding n o im plied 5 p r o mi s e o f

l e n i e n c y w h e r e t h e o f

f i c e r t o l dth e s u s p e c t t h a th e c o u l dn o to f f e r h i m a 6 deal but offered to speak to the district attorney on his b ehalf if he m ade a statem ent), 7 ov errul ed

on o the r gr ound

s bySta te v . T

ollardo , 2012 -N MS C- 008, 275 P. 3d 11 0; 8 M unoz , 1990-NMC A- 109, ¶ 16 (holdin g the confession volun tary wher e the office r 9 re spon de d to the de fe ndant’ s qu es tio n by statin g th at

“ in h is e xpe ri en ce , f

ir st 10 offenders w ho coop erate d wer e less likely to go to j ail than other defendants”). 11 Under these c i rc u m stances, w e believe that D efendant could reasonably infer a 12 pr om ise goi ng t o th e cr im e co nf es se d ba se d onthe of

fi ce rs ’ stat em en ts d

ur ing the 13 in te rv ie w. Se e M

unoz , 199 8- N MS C- 048, ¶ 34 (s ta tin g th at a n im pli ed pr om ise of 14 le nie nc y

oc curs w he n the ac cu se d coul d re as ona bly ha ve inf

er re d a pr om ise goi ng t o 15 th e p un is hm en t fo r th e cri m e to be co nf es se d)
. 16 V olu nt ar in es s 17 { 12} W e n ex t t ur n t o t he o ve ral l q ue st io n o f vo lu nt ari ne ss . See G utierrez , 18 2011 -N MS C- 024, ¶

25 ( sta tin g tha t “ ev ide nc e of a n im pli ed pr om ise is onl y

af ac tor 19 in the totalit y

of the circ um stances tha t co urts consid er in determ ining whether a10

1 co nf es sio n is vol unt ar

y ”)
. “ O n ac la im

that po lic e co er ce d astat em en t, the 2 pr ose cu tio n be ar s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng b y

apr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce thata 3 defendant’ s statem ent was voluntary .” E va ns , 200 9-NMS C-027, ¶ 34. “ [W ] e re view 4 the entire re cord and the circum stances under which the statem ent or confession was 5 m ad e in o rd er t o m ak e an i n d ep en d en t d et er m i n at i o n o f w h e t h e ra d ef en d an t ’s 6 confession wa s volu ntary .” Sta te v . F ek ete , 199 5- N MS C- 049, ¶

34, 120 N
. M. 290 , 7 901 P.2 d 70 8. “ [T ] he pr ep onde ranc e of the e vid en ce m

ust e sta bli sh tha t the 8 co nf es sio n w as not

‘ ex tr ac te d f

ro m a n accu sed th ro ugh fe ar , c oe rc ion , hop e of 9 rew ard, or o ther im

proper inducem ents.’ ” State v. Cooper , 199 7- N MS C- 058, ¶ 30, 10 124 N
. M. 277, 949 P. 2d 660 (quot ing Sta te v . T urnb ow , 196 0- N MS C- 081, ¶ 41, 67 11 N. M. 241, 354 P. 2d 53 3). 12 { 13} Ag ai n , o u r re v i ew o f th e t ra n s cr i p t o f t h e i n t er v i ew s up p o rt s t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 13 ru lin g. A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt f ound , t here w er e a m

ult itu de of

im pli ed pr om ise s of 1 4 le nie n c y

t h a ts t a rt e da tt h e o u t s e to f th e i n t e rv i e w a n dc o n t i n u e dt h r o u g h o ut, 15 co nst itu tin g c oe rc ive pol ic e ove rr ea ch ing
. W e al so f ind it sig nificant tha t pr ior

to 16 m aking bo th the oral and written statem ents at issue, D efendant indicated that he was 17 act in g i n a n e ffo rt to av oi d p ris on . Se e M unoz , 1998-NMS C-048, ¶ 21 (stating that 18 “ [f] o r t h e confession to be involu ntary , ther e m ust be an ‘ essential linkbetwee n 1 9 co er ci v e a ct i v i t y o f t h e S t at e . . . a n d a r e s u l t i n g co n fe s s i o n b y a d ef en d an t ’”11

1 (o m iss ionin or igi na l) ). B ef or e w ri tin g th e ap olo gy

le tte r at the r eque st o f the 2 officer s, Defe ndant said: “ I’ ll do anything to avoid j ail cuz [sic] I don’ t wanna [sic] 3 to m iss out

on m y daught er [’ ] s li fe
. ” A lso , w hil e m ak ing state m en ts p ur portin g to 4 re m em be r the e ve nts of

the e ve nin g, D ef

en da nt r ep ea te dly sa id th at his m oti va tio n 5 w as to av oid

j ai l: “ I’ m tr y ing to re m em

be r be ca use I r ea lly don’ t w an t to go to j ai l or 6 an ythi ng e lse
. . . . I’ m tr y ing to re m em

be r be ca use I w an na[ sic ] be able to j ust put 7 thi s be hin d m e and j ust m ove on. ” “ I’ m tr y ing to re m em

be r but it ’ s . . . li ke I w ill do 8 an ythi ng i t ta ke s to av oid j ai l tim e. ” “ I’ m j ust tr y ing to re m em

be r so I don ’ t . . . I j ust 9
. . . y ou kn ow, I don’ t wanna [sic] to go to j ail.” Se e S ta te v. W ats on , 10 19 71
- N M C A
- 10 4, ¶

1 1, 8 2 N
. M
. 7 69 , 4 87 P
. 2d 1 97 ( st a t i ng t hat“ [ i ] f

t he accused 11 co nf es se s bec au se he w as ind

uc ed by the pr om ise tha t his punis hm en t wi ll not be so 12 se ve re as it oth er

w ise m igh t be , the c onf

es sio n is not

a dm iss ibl e be ca

use it w as not 13 vol unt ar

y ”) ; cf. Gutierrez , 201 1- N MSC-0 24, ¶ 28 ( re j ec tin g th e ar gum en t tha t a 14 confession was obtained th ro u gh prom ises of leniency wher e the suspect indicated 15 that he did no t expect leniency upon confession). 16 { 14} The S tate points to the fac t that Def endant cam e volunt arily

to the po l i ce 17 sta tio n, w as inf

or m ed that he wa s fr ee to le av e, a nd d id n ot a ppe ar sle ep y , ne rv ous, 18 or intoxi cated to the office rs. The State a lso no tes that the officer s rem inded 19 De fendant that they

personally

would not be m aking th e char ging decision. H owever ,12

1 w hil e the se fa ct or s m ay w ei gh in favor of vol unt ar ine ss to som e ex te nt, ba se d onthe 2 tot al ity of the c ir cu m stanc es , w e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t the y a re ins uf fi ci en t 3 to o utw ei gh the co er ci ve ef fe ct of the num er ous im

pli ed pr om ise s of

le nie nc y m ad e 4 to Defen da nt by the off ic ers th ro ug ho ut th e in te rv ie w. Se e B arr , 200 9- N MS C- 024, 5 ¶ 24 ( sta tin g th at

ac onf es sio n is co er ce d w he n the de fe ndant’ s w ill is o ve rb or ne a nd 6 his c ap ac ity

f or se lf -d et er m ina tio n is c ri tic al ly

im pa ir ed ). W e th ere fo re a gr ee w ith 7 the dis t r i c tc ourtt he S t a t e d i d no tm e e ti t s bur de n t o sh owt hatt he s t a t e m e nt s w ere 8 vol unt ar

y by apr ep onde ranc e of the ev ide nc e, an d w e af fi rm it s or de r supp re ssi ng the 9 st at em en ts . Se e E

va ns , 200 9- N MS C- 027, ¶ 34 (s ta tin g tha t the S ta te ’ s f ai lur e to m ak e 10 suc h asho w ing r equir es ar uli ng tha t the c onf

es sio n w as inv olu ntary as am at te r of 11 la w). 12 CON CLU SION 13 { 15} The ord er o f th e d is tri ctco ur t i s af fir m ed
. 14 { 16} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 16 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e13

1 WE CO NCUR:
2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e
4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e