Opinion ID: 2823853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Law of Voluntariness and Coercion

Text: Â¶21Â Â Â Â Â In order for a defendantâs statements to be admissible, the due process clauses of both the United States and Colorado Constitutions require that they be voluntary. Effland v. People, 240 P.3d 868, 877 (Colo. 2010). A statement is voluntary if it is ââtheproduct of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.ââ Id. (quoting People v. Raffaelli, 647 P.2d 230, 234 (Colo. 1982)). In contrast, a statement is involuntary if âcoercive police conduct played a significant role in inducing [the statement].â People v. Zadran, 2013 CO 69, Â¶12. Â¶22Â Â Â Â Â To ascertain whether a defendantâs statements are involuntary because the policeâs conduct was coercive âso as to overbear the defendantâs will,â id. at Â¶10, we must conduct a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that focuses on âthe significant details surrounding and inheringâ in the questioning, People v. Ramadan, 2013 CO 68, Â¶20. As part of this analysis, we must contemplate ââboth the defendantâs ability to resist coercive pressures and the nature of the police conduct.ââ McIntyre, Â¶17 (quoting Ramadan, Â¶20). In particular, we consider several ânon-exhaustiveâ factors: whether the defendant was in custody; whether the defendant was free to leave; whether the defendant was aware of the situation; whether the police read Miranda rights to the defendant; whether the defendant understood and waived Miranda rights; whether the defendant had an opportunity to confer with counsel or anyone else prior to or during the interrogation; whether the statement was made during the interrogation or volunteered later; whether the police threatened [the] defendant or promised anything directly or impliedly; the method [or style] of the interrogation; the defendantâs mental and physical condition just prior to the interrogation; the length of the interrogation; the location of the interrogation; and the physical conditions of the location where the interrogation occurred. Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Zadran, Â¶11). When analyzing these factors, we do not âperform a purely quantitative comparison and mechanically tally those factors suggestive of voluntariness against those indicative of coercion.â Id. at Â¶20 n.2. Rather, we must consider these factors to inform the ultimate inquiry, which is whether the policeâs conduct was coercive ââso as to overbear the defendantâs will.ââ See id. at Â¶16 (quoting Zadran, Â¶10). Â¶23Â Â Â Â Â Having reviewed the law surrounding voluntariness, we now consider whether the trial court erred when it suppressed the statements Liggett made to the investigators during the interview on October 17, 2012.