Opinion ID: 2274302
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Statements to Detective Newsham

Text: Johnson alleges that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress statements he made to Detective Newsham because the statements were unreliable and involuntary. He maintains that the admission of the statements prejudiced him because they provided direct evidence of deliberation.
A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence, and it will be reversed only if it is clearly erroneous. Edwards, 116 S.W.3d at 530. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and deference is given to the trial court's determinations of credibility. Id.
Johnson argues that the trial court should have suppressed the statements because they were unreliable insofar as Detective Newsham's account of when the statements were made conflicted with jail records. He suggests that this conflict demonstrates that Detective Newsham gave false testimony. This argument questions the credibility of a witness. The trial court has the superior opportunity to determine the credibility of witnesses, and this Court defers to the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations. State v. Rousan, 961 S.W.2d 831, 845 (Mo. banc 1998). The trial court did not clearly err in refusing to suppress Detective Newsham's testimony about Johnson's statements on the grounds of reliability.
Johnson further alleges that the statements should have been suppressed because they were involuntary. Johnson argues that his statements were coerced by Detective Newsham's comments on eternal salvation and were made after he had been in police custody for about 16 hours. In support of his coercion arguments, Johnson states that he failed to complete ninth grade and was in need of medication for his mental illness at the time the statements were made. A challenge to the admissibility of a statement on the grounds that it was involuntary puts the burden on the State to show voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. The test for voluntariness is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant was deprived of free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer and whether physical or psychological coercion was of such a degree that the defendant's will was overborne at the time he confessed. Id. Factors that are considered include whether the defendant was advised of his rights and understood them, the defendant's physical and mental state, the length of questioning, the presence of police coercion or intimidation, and the withholding of physical needs. Id. Evidence of the defendant's physical or emotional condition alone, absent evidence of police coercion, is insufficient to demonstrate that the confession was involuntary. Id. Detective Newsham's comments about eternal salvation were not improperly coercive. The comments arose from a discussion about reading and came after Johnson's inquiry about achieving eternal salvation. Detective Newsham's comments were not threats of harm or promises of worldly advantage that would render Johnson's confession inadmissible. See State v. Williamson, 339 Mo. 1038, 99 S.W.2d 76, 79-80 (1936) (Promises yielding involuntary confessions must be promises of `worldly advantage,' as distinguished from adjurations of a moral or spiritual nature; and they must be direct, as distinguished from collateral.). Additionally, Johnson repeatedly waived his rights before making statements throughout the day and did so again before being further questioned by Detective Newsham. Johnson was not questioned constantly throughout the day and he does not allege that he was deprived of his physical needs. Johnson's interview with Detective Newsham lasted only about 20 minutes and was followed by a taped interview lasting only eight minutes. Detective Newsham testified that Johnson did not indicate that he was under any physical, emotional, or mental stress during their conversation, and he did not answer any questions inappropriately. The totality of the circumstances do not indicate that Johnson's will was overborne at the time he confessed and the trial court did not err in finding that his statements to Detective Newsham were voluntary. This point is denied.