Opinion ID: 1194858
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Voluntariness versus Miranda

Text: 31 The parties' arguments raise the interrelated, but distinct, proscriptions against introducing into evidence statements made in violation of the Fifth Amendment protections under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and introducing an involuntary confession. See U.S. Const. amend. V (defendant cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself). A claim that the police coerced a statement requires a different analysis than a claim that an accused voluntarily waived his or her Fifth Amendment protections under [ Miranda ]. Fekete, 1995 NMSC 056, 120 N.M. at 298, 901 P.2d at 716. 32 Miranda requires that a suspect must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. at 1630. However, it is possible for a suspect to voluntarily waive his or her Miranda rights and still make an involuntary confession because police used fear, coercion, hope of reward, or some other improper inducement. See Turnbow, 67 N.M. at 253-54, 354 P.2d at 542.