Opinion ID: 2632408
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's Mental Impairments

Text: Defendant contends that his particular mental state at the time of the interviews rendered his statements involuntary. In particular, defendant asserts that he had a family history of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, had previously been committed to a mental hospital, and had significant brain damage. It is not clear from the record that defendant sufficiently raised this argument at trial. However, respondent does not object to the claim on this ground, and we will address the merits of this claim. Insofar as a defendant's claims of involuntariness emphasize that defendant's particular psychological state rendered him open to coercion, this court has noted that the Fifth Amendment is not `concerned with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion.' ( People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1041, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 929 P.2d 544, quoting Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298, 304-305, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222; see also Colorado v. Connelly (1986) 479 U.S. 157, 165, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 [while mental condition is relevant to an individual's susceptibility to police coercion, a confession must result from coercive state activity before it may be considered involuntary].) The record does not convince us that the interrogating officers were aware of, or exploited, defendant's claimed psychological vulnerabilities in order to obtain statements from him.