Court Opinion

ID: 9933878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:42:37.002647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:12.465790
License: Public Domain

I agree with the majority's holding that the appellant's confession was voluntary. *Page 281 
However, I disagree with the majority's statement thatMcLeod v. State, 718 So.2d 723 (Ala. 1998), has apparently abrogated the concept that an inducement, however slight, may render a confession involuntary. The majority apparently bases this conclusion on the assumption that the "however slight" language and the "overborne" language are incompatible.
In Ex parte Gaddy, 698 So.2d 1150, 1154 (Ala. 1997), the Alabama Supreme Court stated the following standard for determining whether a confession is voluntary:
 "`"The issue is whether defendant's admissions made subsequent to the promise were the product of defendant's free will, or were coerced through the overbearing of defendant's free will, for while the courts are careful to exclude confessions obtained by promises, this does not require the exclusion of what are, in fact, voluntary statements. Under this rule, what renders the confession involuntary is that it was obtained as the result of the promise.
. . ."'"
(Emphasis added.)
Under the "however slight" language, a confession is involuntary if it is the result of a direct or implied promise or inducement, no matter how slight that promise or inducement may be. As the Alabama Supreme Court stated inGaddy, "[d]etermining whether the [officer's] statement induced the confession brings into play the totality-of-the-circumstances test." Ex parte Gaddy,698 So.2d at 1154. Although McLeod did not cite the "however slight" language, it did emphasize that a statement will be rendered involuntary if a defendant's will is overborne by an inducement or implied promise. Like Gaddy, McLeod
states that, when determining whether the inducement overbore the defendant's will, courts must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession.
It is apparent that the "overborne" test does not abrogate the concept that a promise or inducement, however slight, may render a confession inadmissible if it was a result of the promise or inducement. Rather, these concepts are intertwined. In determining whether the slight promise or inducement actually caused the confession, courts look to the totality of the circumstances to decide whether the defendant's will was overborne.