Court Opinion

ID: 9545632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:16:31.020411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:15.170958
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice
(concurring):
I join in the majority opinion. However, in the absence of some statement as to how we view the record before us, our remand for a determination of the question of vol-untariness raises the possibility of an avoidable additional appeal and remand. As the majority notes, the detective’s comments were plainly outside the bounds of permissible interrogation and were, on their face, coercive. Moreover, the transcripts demonstrate that defendant’s confession was made immediately after these coercive statements. For the benefit of the trial court and the parties, I think we should indicate that while the State has contended that “it may be possible ... to find ... that Bell’s improper statements did not actually induce defendant to confess” (emphasis added), if such a finding were based on nothing more than the evidence presented to us at this point, there *228would be some doubt as to such a finding’s sustainability.