Opinion ID: 1096122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Inducements and Promises?

Text: Here, Abram attacks the voluntariness of his confession. He invokes the general rule that a confession, to be admissible, must have been given voluntarily, and not as the proximate result of any promises, threats or other inducements. Layne v. State, 542 So.2d 237, 240 (Miss. 1989); Chisolm v. State, 529 So.2d 630, 634 (Miss. 1988). Given this challenge, Abram secured a due process entitlement to a reliable determination that his confession was in fact voluntarily given. Powell v. State, 540 So.2d 13, 16 (Miss. 1989); Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 377, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 1781, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, 915 (1964). The State has the burden of proving the voluntariness (and consequent admissibility) of the confession beyond a reasonable doubt. This point generally presents a fact question which is to be resolved by the trial judge according to the correct legal standards. In making this determination, the trial judge must absolutely resist any inclination to consider whether the confession is truthful or authentic; the focus must be limited to the voluntariness of the confession. Powell, 540 So.2d at 15. Once the trial judge has determined the confession to be voluntary, this court will only reverse if convinced that such a finding is manifestly wrong and/or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, except that our scope of review is less constrained where detailed and specific findings by the trial court are lacking on the critical issue(s). McCarty v. State, 554 So.2d 909, 912 (Miss. 1989); Chisolm, 529 So.2d at 634. As previously shown, the record of the suppression hearing presents conflicting testimony on several fronts. There are, however, parts of the testimony of Sheriff Forbes, Magee, Jackson, Jones and Harrison that bear close scrutiny. For instance, Magee openly admitted that Abram might have been given the impression that it was his co-defendant Barnes who faced the most trouble, and that his own cooperation would work to his advantage. Sheriff Forbes' recollection, though lacking on critical points, was nonetheless such that he could not deny that Abram was encouraged to do right by God, that he was told Barnes was most wanted, and/or that Abram was confronted with the possibility of mercy or the death penalty. Rev. Jones, who unwittingly or not acted as an agent and a conduit for Sheriff Forbes, offered undisputed testimony that he communicated to Abram the fact that his cooperation might work to his advantage. They also talked about the death penalty, and Rev. Jones communicated to Abram, perhaps sincerely and at his own behest, the religious consequences of his actions. J.C. Jackson undeniably informed Abram on Sunday morning that the law would cooperate with Abram if Abram cooperated with the law. Of course, Jackson maintained that he visited Abram of his own accord, and was not solicited by anyone connected with the investigation. It is clear, however, that Jackson could not have seen Abram at all, regardless of how he came to be at the jail on Sunday, without the permission of law enforcement authorities. Other than this, the remainder of Jackson's communications with Abram are disputed. Finally, Deputy Harrison testified unequivocally that he tried to put Abram at ease over the confession by putting himself in Abram's shoes, and reassuring Abram it would look better if he cooperated. The trial judge ruled very precisely that the confession was admissible because of the educational background of the defendant. Abram was 21 at the time and had little more than a year of college experience to his credit. This limited finding by the circuit court may not be reversed unless it appears manifestly wrong, although our scope of review regarding the overall admissibility of the confession is somewhat less constrained given the absence of any specific and detailed findings on this critical issue. McCarty v. State, 554 So.2d 909, 912 (Miss. 1989). We have repeatedly condemned the practice whereby law enforcement interrogators, or related third parties, convey to suspects the impression, however slight, that cooperation by the suspect might be of some benefit. Dunn v. State, 547 So.2d 42 (Miss. 1989); Layne v. State, 542 So.2d at 240; Agee v. State, 185 So.2d 671, 674 (Miss. 1966). In Agee, authorities called J.H. Harvey, a professor who had taught the defendant in school, to the courthouse. Harvey testified that he didn't threaten the defendant, but he most assuredly told him to tell the truth because it would be lighter on him if he'd tell the truth. 185 So.2d at 674. The Court held this single instance of private communication between Harvey and the defendant was enough to render the confession inadmissible. A confession made after the accused has been offered some hope of reward if he will confess or tell the truth cannot be said to be voluntary. This Court has long adhered to the rule that when the offer of reward or hope of leniency is made by a private individual the same rule applies. In Clash v. State, 146 Miss. 811, 112 So. 370 (1927) a confession was held inadmissible when it was signed after a private individual had told him that,   `If he would tell us about the money, and return it, we would let him out of jail on bond.' In Johnson v. State, 89 Miss. 773, 42 So. 606 (1906), private citizens told the accused that,    it would be better for him to confess, as it would go lighter with him if he told the truth. The confession that followed these statements by private citizens was held inadmissible. 185 So.2d at 674. Contrast the facts of Agee with the undisputed facts of this case. Rev. Jones, a former teacher and retired minister, called in by the Sheriff to meet privately with Abram, and Abram only, communicates to Abram, at Sheriff Forbes' direction, the notion that there might be a chance for mercy if he volunteered to cooperate. And though the Reverend couldn't be sure that Sheriff Forbes mentioned the death penalty, he and Abram did discuss the death penalty. The following exchange between defense counsel and the minister is telling: Q. What, if anything, did the sheriff say concerning whether it would be better for Donald for him to talk to the sheriff? A. All right. As best as I can remember, it's something like this, that if he was involved or if he knew who was involved, then he should be sharing the names with the sheriff that the right people might be charged and that if he was not involved he wouldn't be. Q. What, if anything, did the sheriff say if Donald was involved? Did he indicate whether it might go better for Donald if he cooperated? A. The indications were that if he volunteered, if he was involved and he volunteered to cooperate, that whoever might be in charge of the court, the jury or what-not, might be more lenient than if he blatantly refused and then was proven guilty. It might go real hard for him. Q. Did you get the indication from Sheriff Forbes that you were to communicate this to Donald? A. Well, I didn't glean that that was exactly what he wanted me to do. My indication  my gleaning from our conversation was that we were interested in the boy's welfare and not so much as to find some way of trapping him or getting him to admit guilty or whatever part, but rather he was interested in the boy finding help. Q. What, if anything, did the sheriff tell you about whether Donald might avoid the death penalty or receive a lesser sentence if he cooperated? A. Now, I cannot state that emphatically, but the indication was that if he  if he was involved, he needed to state what his involvement was and that if he did this, then there might be a chance for mercy, but if he did not, then it needed to be known and who was guilty. Q. Okay, and did you communicate this to Mr. Abram? A. Yes, I did. I would like to clarify that, now. My concern was for the  was for the student's spiritual welfare,  Q. Right. A.  and I think that he will tell you I spoke to him about the seriousness of doing such a thing as this if he did do it or had any part in it and what the Lord felt about it and what the Bible had to say about these matters, and not only would he face consequences here, but there was God that he would have to meet in judgment and face the consequences there and that if I could help him spiritually to find understanding and relationship with the Lord and if he was guilty to any degree, if I could help him, I'd help him find forgiveness from the Lord, anything to strengthen his spiritual life. Q. And it's true that the sheriff indicated to you that if Donald cooperated, he could possibly avoid the death penalty or get a lighter sentence? A. I'm not sure about that, now. I'm not positive about that. I think we had talked about those things happening in other cases where someone cooperated, that they did and would avoid a death penalty, but I'm not sure what we said about that, now. Q. Well, do you remember talking with Donald about a long term of imprisonment? A. Yes, I did. Q. And do you remember talking with him about the death penalty? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you know that this was a death-penalty crime when you came up to the jail? A. Yes, if it was the kind of crime that I heard that it was, then I knew that we had a statute that perhaps could lead to the death penalty for that. Q. And you indicated to Donald that this was a death-penalty crime? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. If I remember correctly, I did. Q. Okay, and was there anything else the sheriff told you on August 12, 1982 (sic), to communicate to Donald? A. I honestly can't remember anything else. I really can't. Q. And did you communicate to Donald that it might be to his benefit to cooperate? A. I did. Q. And is there any question about whether you communicated that to him or not? A. I wouldn't think so because in our conversation he denied knowing anything about it, being there, being any part of it, and when I insisted that he needed to tell the truth, that eventually one way or the other the truth would be known, then as I was getting ready to leave, he indicated that he might have something he would share with the sheriff ... Regardless of what Reverend Jones' subjective impressions or intentions were, the plain fact is that Abram was given hope of leniency, and was confronted with the legal and religious consequences of his refusal to cooperate by someone acting at the request of the Sheriff. The Sheriff was available at the suppression hearing but was not recalled to deny these statements. The concluding passage, if believed, also indicates that the Reverend's words were at least a proximate contributing cause of his confession the next day. Factor in the undisputed testimony of Deputy Harrison that he told Abram at the time the confession was given that, in his view, it would look better if he confessed. Harrison did testify that this statement was made after Abram agreed to confess, but it appears to have been made before Abram did actually confess. Finally, there is Milton Magee's own admission that Abram may have been given the impression by he and Sheriff Forbes that cooperation could be of some benefit. In Miller v. State, 243 So.2d 558 (Miss. 1971), a confession was held inadmissible where the defendant was induced by a statement from the sheriff to the effect that he would be better off by telling the truth. 243 So.2d at 559; see also, Robinson v. State, 247 Miss. 609, 613, 157 So.2d 49, 51 (1963) (exhortation to `square with the State, or the City, whoever the crime was against' and with the `man upstairs' ... was the equivalent of an inducement, rendering the statement inadmissible...) If you will recall, Sheriff Forbes could not deny that Abram was encouraged to do right by God, and Reverend Jones definitely discussed the religious ramifications of Abram's action. We conclude that the various statements and impressions conveyed to Abram proximately caused him to confess, as he testified. They were more than sufficient to render his confession involuntary. At a minimum, there was reasonable doubt over the voluntariness of Abram's confession. The circuit court's refusal to suppress the confession just because Abram was educated was manifestly wrong.