Opinion ID: 2385106
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Taped Confession

Text: As his fourth point of error appellant argues the trial court erred in allowing his taped confession to be played and that the confession itself should have been suppressed. At the pretrial hearing appellant first became aware the prosecution intended to play the taped confession for the jury. The trial court ruled at that time so appellant would have an opportunity before trial to compare the tape and the transcription. After hearing the tape, appellant agreed there were no substantive inconsistencies and acknowledged the statement itself was not a surprise. He argued to the trial court only that he did not know the tape would be played to the jury. Appellant has cited no authority for this assignment of error nor demonstrated how the use of the tape under these circumstances resulted in any prejudice. Appellant also claims his statement to the police was the result of a promise or reward because he was under the impression that he would be given psychiatric help. He does not assert the police promised him such help, rather the promise had been made by the social worker he first talked to and the police did nothing to dispel his belief that help was forthcoming. We know of no authority, nor has appellant cited any, suggesting the existence of such a duty on the part of police. Furthermore, we note it is a false promise that renders a confession involuntary, Tippitt v. State, 285 Ark. 294, 686 S.W.2d 420 (1985), and here appellant has readily conceded the case-worker arranged for psychological treatment. We find no error.