Opinion ID: 836142
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Involuntariness of Statements

Text: In reviewing the voluntariness of defendant's statements, this court is bound by the trial court's findings of historical fact if the evidence supports them. Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485, 487, 443 P.2d 621 (1968). We are not bound by the trial court's ultimate holding as to voluntariness, however, and we assess anew whether the facts are sufficient to meet constitutional standards. State v. Stevens, 311 Or. 119, 135, 806 P.2d 92 (1991). Defendant has failed to identify any evidence in the record that provides a basis for a conclusion that the police made an offer of leniency to defendant or employed some other fraudulent tactic to obtain defendant's statement. He offers instances of contact with the police that do not indicate any misconduct on their part or anything that would have encompassed some form of deception. He argues that the police obtained a statement from him by leading [him] to believe that they cared about him and were interested in his well-being, and that his statement was derived through the implied representation of leniency that one would expect of a friend. Defendant thus attempts to construe courtesy and civility as some form of deceit. The police did not mislead defendant and, indeed, defendant understood that the police had thought that he was the prime suspect. He acknowledged that fact, for example, when he told the police that the D.A. is going [to] put me in prison, that's for sure. Similarly, defendant's reference in his argument to his mental health is not sufficiently developed to conclude that his state of mind made his statement involuntary.