Court Opinion

ID: 9665645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:53:42.185395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:17.354054
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam (on rehearing). The plaintiff in error in her brief for rehearing argues that this court erred: (1) In concluding the confessions were freely and voluntarily *359bmade, and (2) in applying on appeal the great-weight- and-clear-preponderance-of-the-evidence test rather than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt test. This court rested its decision of voluntariness on two grounds. First, the court made an independent investigation of the facts underlying the issue of voluntariness and concluded the confessions were voluntarily made beyond a reasonable doubt. In this procedure, this court itself was required to be and was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the voluntariness of the confessions.
It is true, we stated also in the opinion the trial court’s finding was not against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. But, in view of our independent determination this statement, although true, is immaterial. Whether the proper test on review of a trial court’s finding of voluntariness when this court does not make an independent investigation of the facts should be stated in terms of the great-weight-and-clear-preponderance-of-the-evidence test or in terms of whether this court can say that the trial court could have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt or that no finder of fact could be so convinced, we reserve for future consideration. Rehearing denied.