Opinion ID: 2817272
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dissenting opinion

Text: One justice dissented, criticizing the majority for relying on Detective Wheeles’s testimony from the suppression hearing, at which he explained his subjective reasons for comments he made during his interview with Ms. Sharp. Id. at 612. The dissent argued anyone in Ms. Sharp’s position would have interpreted Detective Wheeles’s assurance - 13 - that Ms. Sharp was not going to jail as a promise, and Ms. Sharp fulfilled her end of any deal by not saying “no” in response to his questions, as he had instructed her to do. Id. The dissent also challenged the majority’s calling the promises concerning Ms. Sharp’s children a “collateral benefit.” Id. at 612. It argued Ms. Sharp thought she would directly benefit from the promise to find a women’s shelter for her and her children. Id. More importantly, the dissent argued, the promise offered Ms. Sharp— safety for her young children—was no less compelling than a promise of leniency for the crime being investigated. Id.