Opinion ID: 1276174
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: defendant flowers

Text: Defendant Flowers argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress the inculpatory statements he made to the authorities. Flowers contends that the statements should be held to be involuntary due to inducements and promises made to him by Captain Roberts of the Wilkes County Sheriff's Department. At the suppression hearing, Captain Roberts testified that he questioned Flowers during the early morning hours of 3 January 1982. Prior to the interview, the defendant was informed of his Miranda rights. Roberts testified that he told the defendant that the authorities had information that he was involved with the crimes which occurred at the Greer residence. Roberts acknowledged that he had told Flowers that if he cooperated, it could possibly be helpful to him. However, Roberts testified that he told the defendant that he could not make any promises and, in response to defendant's inquiry, specifically told him that he did not have the authority to promise that any sentence he might receive would be served concurrently with any other sentence. The defendant testified at the suppression hearing that Roberts told him that he knew that he was going to have to return to prison due to a parole violation and that if he confessed he would try to see that any sentence imposed was made to run concurrent with any other sentence he was required to serve. The trial court made findings of fact based on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. Among these findings were: [T]hat Captain Roberts, in talking with the defendant concerning the fact that the defendant was already serving a prison sentence and was wanting some help, Captain Roberts stated that it could possibly be of some help if he talked, but that hethat is Captain Robertscould not make any promises and did not make any promises. Based upon this and other findings of fact, the court concluded that the confession was voluntarily made, without threats or promises or hope of reward. Flowers argues that the evidence at the motion hearing establishes that the confession was induced by assurances from law enforcement officials that they would assist him in connection with the offenses. We disagree. Findings of fact made by a trial court are conclusive and binding upon appellate courts if supported by competent evidence in the record. State v. Curry, 288 N.C. 660, 220 S.E.2d 545 (1975); State v. Pruitt, 286 N.C. 442, 212 S.E.2d 92 (1975). The trial court's conclusions of law, however, are reviewable on appeal. State v. Corley, 310 N.C. 40, 311 S.E.2d 540 (1984); State v. Bishop, 272 N.C. 283, 158 S.E.2d 511 (1968). It is well established that a confession obtained as a result of an inducement of hope promising relief from the criminal charge to which the confession relates is involuntary and inadmissible. E.g., State v. Jackson, 308 N.C. 549, 304 S.E.2d 134 (1983); State v. Pruitt, 286 N.C. 442, 212 S.E.2d 92 (1975). However, here, the trial court found that Roberts told the defendant that he could not make any promises and, in fact, made no promises concerning relief as to these or any other charges. This finding was amply supported by the evidence and is conclusive on appeal. The only evidence that could possibly support the defendant's argument is the court's finding that Roberts stated that it could possibly be of some help if he talked. We conclude, however, that this statement by Captain Roberts could not have aroused in the defendant, a man 28 years old with experience in dealing with law enforcement officials, any reasonable hope of reward if he confessed to the crimes. See State v. Branch, 306 N.C. 101, 291 S.E.2d 653 (1982). This assignment of error is overruled. The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a portion of his confessions in which he refers to an incident that occurred several hours prior to the events at the Greer residence. In the confessions, the defendant stated that, while at a nightclub, two men started fighting and knocked over his drink. Flowers said that he confronted the two men and told them that if they did not pay for his drink, he would kill them. We agree with the defendant that this portion of the confession was irrelevant to any of the charges for which he was being tried and should have been excluded. However, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. For the foregoing reasons, we reach the following results in the cases against the defendants: No. 82CRS6057, No. 82CRS6056, and No. 82CRS6066First-Degree Murder (All Defendants)NO ERROR. No. 82CRS6058, No. 82CRS6052, and No. 82CRS6064First-Degree Burglary (All Defendants)SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. No. 82CRS6059, No. 82CRS6055, and No. 82CRS6063Second-Degree Kidnapping (All Defendants)SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. No. 82CRS6061, No. 82CRS6053, and No. 82CRS6067Breaking or Entering and Larceny (All Defendants)SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. Justice BILLINGS did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.