Opinion ID: 1794153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: osborn's voluntary confession

Text: Osborn also asserts that his confession was not freely and voluntarily made and, therefore, was not admissible. Osborn asserts that when Officer Wilson consoled Osborn, he induced the confession. [T]o be admissible in evidence, an accused's statement must be shown by the State to have been freely and voluntarily given and not to have been the product of any promise or inducementdirect or indirect no matter how slight. State v. Bronson, 242 Neb. at 937, 496 N.W.2d at 889. Officer Wilson promised nothing to Osborn in exchange for his confession. Wilson merely told Osborn that he would feel better if he talked and stated something to the effect that Osborn might be a victim of circumstances. At the suppression hearing, Osborn testified on cross-examination regarding his confession as follows: Q. At that point in time, then, you did, in fact, cooperate with the police during this interview; is that true? A. Yes. Q. And you answered their questions? A. Yes. Q. Okay. They didn't do anything in this interview to force you to answer the questions; is that true? A. No. Q. And they didn't promise you anything in return for making a statement? A. No. Q. They didn't threaten you in any manner to get you to make a statement; is that true? A. No. Q. The statement that you gave the police, was that something that you gave freely and voluntarily to them? A. Yes. Q. And they didn't trick you into saying anything or coerce you in any way, did they? A. No. Q. And at least at that point you wanted to cooperate with them and tell them your version of what happened; is that true? A. Yes. Based on the facts and Osborn's own testimony, we find that the confession was freely and voluntarily made.