Opinion ID: 2614597
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: subjective factors

Text: ¶37 We now consider Rettenberger's subjective characteristics, especially as known to the interrogating officers, to determine the extent to which those characteristics made him more susceptible to manipulation. All of the factors discussed above become more significant when Rettenberger's personal characteristics are taken into account. Rettenberger was eighteen years old at the time of the interrogation, had the maturity level of a fifteen-year-old, and had a below-average I.Q. The concern in a case involving a defendant of subnormal intelligence is one of suggestibility. Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929, 938 (5th Cir.1980). That concern is heightened here, where the defendant had had little prior experience with the judicial system, suffered from A.D.D., and exhibited symptoms of depression, anxiety disorder, thought disorder, schizophrenia, and dependent personality disorder, making him overly compliant and particularly vulnerable to psychological manipulation. ¶38 In addition, as the district court found, Detective Corbin, based on personal experience, recognized that Rettenberger exhibited symptoms of A.D.D., had the maturity level of a fifteen-year-old, was under extreme stress and anxiety during the interrogation, and was afraid of the capital charges being brought against him. Furthermore, the district court specifically found that the officers also knew that the defendant had a below-average I.Q. and that he was more susceptible to stress and coercion than the average person. ¶39 These factors raise serious questions regarding both the voluntariness and reliability of the confession. As Detective Corbin wrote in his report, during the interrogation Rettenberger seemed to look to me for answers to what was going on. He further noted that during both interviews I observed one characteristic portrayed by Rettenberger and that was that he wanted to confess what ever [sic] it would take in order not to go to prison for an extended period of time or face the death penalty. The videotapes of the interviews support this assessment at numerous points. After Rettenberger had confessed his involvement in the crime at the conclusion of the first interrogation, the following colloquy took place: OFFICER TIMOTHY: The worst is over, right? You told us. Now we just have to do  MR. RETTENBERGER: Was I right? I was right, right? What I told you guys was not  wasn't, no you don't think I'm bullshitting you, right? ¶40 In fact, Rettenberger's confession contains little information that was not first provided or suggested by the interrogating officers. During the interrogations, the officers told or suggested to Rettenberger that he had been involved in the murder/robbery that had taken place at Motel 6; the murder had been an accident; more than one person had been involved in the crime; the crime took place in the Motel 6 office; the crime took place on October 29, 1996; the crime took place at approximately 9 p.m.; there were two cars involved in the crime; one of those cars was his; Rettenberger and his accomplices had driven by the Motel 6 before stopping to rob it; he had parked in the front driveway of the Motel 6; two of his friends and his uncle were also involved in the crime; one of his accomplices probably served as a lookout and one stayed in the car as the driver; not much money was involved in the robbery; he was the only one who entered the Motel 6; the victim was sitting or eating at a table when Rettenberger entered; Rettenberger had carried the gun in his waistband; he had showed the gun to the victim; he had gone over the counter; he had hit the victim on the head a couple of times with the gun; the victim had tried to take the gun from him; he had talked to the victim; the victim had tried to run; Rettenberger fired three shots, aiming at the victim's shoulder; the first shot was fired and after approximately ten seconds two others were fired; he had not meant to kill the victim; two of those shots struck the victim; the two shots struck the victim in the shoulder; the victim was not shot in the head; the killing had not been execution-style; the bullet wounds should not have been fatal except that the bullet fragmented and struck the heart; the victim went down; Rettenberger ran out. Rettenberger was not the original source of any of these details. ¶41 At times, the information that the officers gave Rettenberger took the form of outright instructions or demands. DETECTIVE CORBIN: Who showed him the gun? Did you show him the gun? MR. RETTENBERGER: Did I? DETECTIVE CORBIN: Yeah. Now I'm telling you, you showed him the gun. MR. RETTENBERGER: Okay. ¶42 On many other occasions, Rettenberger simply incorporated the officers' suggestions into his confession. For instance, once the officers gave Rettenberger the names of his friends whom they were investigating, he then implicated those friends  and no others  in the crime. At several points in the interrogation, Rettenberger asked the officers for information about the crime, as when he asked (after he had already confessed to shooting the victim but before he was told that the victim was shot twice), MR. RETTENBERGER: Where did, where did the bullet hit at? MR. TIMOTHY: Well  MR. RETTENBERGER: Do you mind if I ask that? OFFICER TIMOTHY: Well, we'll tell you, but we kind of want to get an idea of where you was [sic] aiming at. A similar exchange occurred (again after Rettenberger had confessed) when Detective Corbin asked him to draw them a picture of the gun used in the shooting: DETECTIVE CORBIN: Can you draw me kind of  you know, I don't care if it looks really good. Just so I have an idea. MR. RETTENBERGER: What was the caliber, anyways, of that gun? DETECTIVE CORBIN: You don't know? MR. RETTENBERGER: No, I really don't know. ¶43 When the officers changed the facts they had provided Rettenberger, his story also changed. For instance, on the first day when he was told that three people were involved in the crime, he told the officers that all three entered the Motel 6 lobby. When, in the following interrogation, the officers told him that they knew he entered the lobby alone, he stated that he went into the lobby alone. ¶44 Early in the first interrogation, Rettenberger had told the officers, Okay, let  I'm going to tell you, I'm going to tell you just like this. I'll tell you, I'll say whatever you want me to say. I'll say I did this, I'll say I did that, I'll say whatever. I cannot tell you something that I don't know about. By the close of the second day, the officers had directly or indirectly given Rettenberger virtually all the facts that he used in his confession. ¶45 Full consideration of all the factors discussed above compels a determination that Rettenberger's confession was involuntary to the extent the record indicates that his will, already vulnerable due to certain known mental disabilities and deficiencies, was overborne by the suggestive and coercive techniques used by the interrogators, which exploited those very vulnerabilities. In the face of a challenge to the voluntariness of a statement or confession, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was made voluntarily based upon the totality of circumstances. State v. Allen, 839 P.2d 291, 300 (Utah 1992). In this case, the prosecution has failed to carry its burden. Reviewing the interrogation in light of the totality of circumstances, we conclude that Rettenberger's confession was induced by police coercion and was involuntary. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's denial of Rettenberger's motion to suppress and we remand this case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶46 Chief Justice HOWE, Justice STEWART, Justice ZIMMERMAN, and Justice RUSSON concur in Associate Chief Justice DURHAM's opinion.