Court Opinion

ID: 9648455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:21:47.165316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:01.179554
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. The law imposes on this court the responsibility of making an independent review of the circumstances surrounding confessions made by suspects while held in custody, the presumption being that incriminating statements are involuntary. The totality of the circumstances in this case leads me to the conclusion the state has failed to overcome the presumption against this confession. Charges of physical abuse are commonly raised and, necessarily, we depend on the trial judge to determine whose version is credible, but in the end the burden rests here. The appellant insists he was physically abused by the officers and his mother gives rather graphic support to those claims. The opposing testimony by two officers is plainly equivocal: “I don’t recall [appellant] being intimidated or pressured by anyone” (T. 141), “I don’t recall seeing anyone strike or' threaten [appellant]” (T. 146), and, “So far as I know there were no promises or threats made to [appellant] before or during the taking of either statement” (T. 152) (The emphasis is supplied). Under these circumstances the state’s proof is less than convincing against evidence to the contrary, not implausible on its face. Consequently I would suppress the confession. Hubbell, .C.J., joins this dissent.