Opinion ID: 1667339
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Was Goodwin's Statement to Police Voluntary?

Text: The Due Process Clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV and the due process clause of Neb. Const. art. I, § 3, preclude admissibility of an involuntary confession. [30] The prosecution has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that incriminating statements by the accused were voluntarily given and not the product of coercion. [31] In making this determination, a totality of the circumstances test is applied, and factors to consider include the tactics used by the police, the details of the interrogation, and any characteristics of the accused that might cause his or her will to be easily overborne. [32] An additional factor to consider is whether the suspect is a minor, but this factor is not determinative. [33] Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to a finding that a confession is not voluntary. [34] The pertinent historical facts are essentially undisputed. Goodwin came to the police station with his grandmother, who was seated next to him throughout the police questioning. Perna told Goodwin that his name had come up during the investigation and that he needed to be straight in answering questions about his activities that day. Several minutes later, after Goodwin had denied any involvement, Perna told him that a witness had identified him as the shooter. Perna said he thought there was a good chance that the shooter did not know there was a child in the car and that he did not intend to kill her. Both officers characterized the event as a tragic accident, and Herout stated, No one means to kill an innocent kid. At that point, Goodwin stated that he did not intend to shoot the girl in the car and stated that it was an accident. His grandmother then terminated the interview, which had lasted approximately 25 to 30 minutes. Prior to that time, Goodwin had not requested that the interview be stopped or indicated that he did not understand what was taking place. Goodwin argues that the officers' comments about the lack of intent to kill and their characterization of the shooting as a tragic accident were `minimizing' tactics which amounted to an implicit promise that punishment would be less severe if Goodwin admitted his involvement. [35] In rejecting this argument, the district court noted that the officers' reference to the crime being an `accident' was unaccompanied by any other express threats or promises and was made in the context of a continued effort by the officers to urge [Goodwin] to tell the truth. The confession of an accused may be involuntary and inadmissible if obtained in exchange for a promise of leniency. [36] For example, in State v. Smith, [37] we held that a police officer's statement that he would attempt to have the case transferred to juvenile court if the 15-year-old defendant cooperated with police was an inducement which rendered the subsequent confession involuntary. No such promise of leniency was expressly made in this case. But we have recognized that under certain circumstances, a promised benefit might be inferred from an officer's statement to an accused, if such an inference is reasonable. [38] In any circumstance, the benefit offered to a defendant must be definite and must overbear his or her free will in order to render the statement involuntary. [39] Mere advice or exhortation by the police that it would be better for the accused to tell the truth, when unaccompanied by either a threat or promise, does not make a subsequent confession involuntary. [40] Based upon our independent review, we conclude that no implied promise of leniency can reasonably be inferred from the questioning techniques utilized by the detectives. There was no suggestion of any definite benefit which Goodwin could expect to receive in exchange for his statement. The references to lack of intent and a tragic accident were made in the context of the detectives' efforts to persuade Goodwin to truthfully explain his involvement in the shooting. Although the record suggests that the detectives may have been downplaying the circumstances as a technique to get Goodwin to tell the truth, this fact alone does not amount to an implied promise of leniency or persuade us that Goodwin's will was overborne. [41] Based upon our independent review of the historical facts as determined by the district court, and which we find to be supported by the record, we conclude that Goodwin's statement to police was voluntary and admissible at trial.