Opinion ID: 1670476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Voluntariness of Tyler's Confession

Text: [14] Tyler's next contention is that the prosecution failed to carry its burden to show that he voluntarily confessed to the officers at OCHS. The conclusion that Tyler was not in custody when he confessed means that officers did not violate Tyler's Fifth Amendment right by failing to give him Miranda warnings. But it does not resolve whether Tyler's confession was voluntary. If the confession was given involuntarily, then use of the confession at trial violated Tyler's 14th Amendment due process rights. [15-17] 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. [68] The factors used to determine whether an incriminating statement was voluntarily given include whether (1) defendant is in custody at the time of the statement, (2) defendant is alone and unrepresented by counsel, (3) the promise or inducement is initiated by prosecuting officials as opposed to defendant or someone acting on his behalf, (4) defendant is aware of his constitutional and other legal rights, (5) the potentially incriminating statement is part of an abortive plea bargain, (6) the promise or inducement leading to the statement is fulfilled by prosecuting authorities, and (7) defendant is subjected to protracted interrogation or evidence appears on the record to show that coercion precludes the statement from being knowing and intelligent. [69] An additional factor to consider in making this inquiry is whether the suspect was a minor. [70] Our de novo review of the facts of this case as they relate to the above factors leads us to conclude that Tyler's confession was voluntary. [18] We have already concluded Tyler was not in custody when he confessed to officers. There is no credible evidence that his confession was induced by any promises on behalf of the police. While officers did not read Tyler his Miranda rights, they were not required to do so because, again, Tyler was not in custody. The police did, however, inform Tyler that he was free to leave. Hence, Tyler was aware of all the legal rights that the officers were required to provide for him. The interrogation was not protracted; by all accounts, the whole encounter lasted no more than 20 minutes. The only facts that weigh against a finding that Tyler voluntarily confessed are that Tyler was alone and that he was a minor. But our precedent shows that standing alone, these two factors are insufficient to render a confession involuntary. [71] In State v. Garner, [72] for example, police contacted a 15-year-old murder suspect at his grandmother's home. The suspect agreed to accompany police to the police station for questioning. The questioning began at 2:16 a.m. The suspect was questioned, alone, by two officers, until he confessed to the crime at approximately 4 a.m. In reviewing the above facts, we held that the suspect's confession was voluntary and, therefore, properly entered into evidence. [73] We see no facts that would preclude the same conclusion here. Accordingly, we conclude that the prosecution met its burden to show that Tyler's confession was voluntarily made and was not the product of coercion.