Court Opinion

ID: 9521011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:55:08.09157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:30.627893
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE ALLOY, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. In the instant case, the trial judge noted that the question of voluntariness was a close one. Pertinent facts were produced at a pretrial suppression hearing on the question of the confession’s voluntariness. Two witnesses testified at the hearing: Michael Lage, a Rock Island police investigator, and the defendant, Francis Eckles. The defendant testified that the evening prior to his interrogation he was picked up by police while standing with a friend on the street. He was asked to get in the back seat of the squad car and did so. As the officer drove toward the police station he received a radio message indicating that the defendant was to come to the police station the next day to answer questions about a residential burglary. The defendant was released from the car. The defendant testified that he felt the police would issue a warrant for his arrest if he did not go to the station the next day. He arrived at the station in the afternoon of the following day, where Detective Lage met him and took him to a small room. Lage did not advise him that he was under arrest. Both Lage and defendant Eckles testified that Lage asked Eckles whether he was involved in the burglary and further informed Eckles that they had a witness who said he was involved. Eckles denied any involvement in the burglary at least three times. Lage testified that when the defendant continued to deny any involvement, he told the defendant that an investigation would be made of the burglary. He informed Eckles that he should tell if he was involved in the burglary and not wait. He told Eckles that it would in his (defendant’s) best interests to get the truth out as fast as possible. Lage and the defendant both testified about a promise made by Lage to defendant. Detective Lage told Eckles that if he (Eckles) told the truth and cooperated, Lage would inform the State’s Attorney and testify in court as to his cooperation. Shortly after, the defendant admitted his participation in the burglary. He was then advised of his rights, waived them, and made a tape-recorded statement admitting to the burglary. The defendant’s testimony was that he stopped denying involvement in the burglary and made his admissions because of the promise by Lage to go to court and testify about his cooperation. The defendant, at the time, was 19 years old, with a ninth-grade education. His testimony was that he felt Lage’s help might make things go easier for him. It was disputed as to whether Lage also said that they would be lenient with Eckles if he confessed. Lage denied making that statement. The court took the suppression motion under advisement, noting it was “an extremely close case.” The motion was later denied, the court determining the confession was voluntary. The issue is the voluntariness of the confession. While we are generally reluctant to overturn the decision of the trial court on matters of this nature, because of the superior position that court is in to determine credibility and weight, in the instant case the record is clear and largely undisputed. Both Lage and defendant Eckles indicated that Eckles initially denied any involvement, but changed his mind and confessed after Lage had exhorted him that it would be in his best interests to tell the truth and promised him that he would inform the State’s Attorney of his cooperation and testify for him in court. Regardless of whether Lage expressly mentioned that leniency would result from the defendant’s cooperation, the clear import of his promises was that lenient treatment would likely follow if he gave a statement. Furthermore, the record indicates that the defendant’s decision to confess was in large part in response to the encouragement from Detective Lage. In People v. Heide (1922), 302 Ill. 624, 628-29, 135 N.E.2d 77, the Illinois Supreme Court detailed the effects of such promises: “The natural effect on the minds of the plaintiffs in error of such statements [to tell the truth and State’s Attorney might show leniency] by the officers would be to cause them to feel that they were being advised to speak, and that if they told the truth they would be taken to the State’s Attorney’s office and allowed to make a statement, and then whatever he did for them would be better for them on account of their telling the truth.” In People v. Ruegger (1975), 32 Ill. App. 3d 765, 336 N.E.2d 50, the court relied upon the rule enunciated in Heide in affirming the trial court’s conclusion that a confession to police, after statements from them that they would “go to bat” for the defendant, was involuntary. (32 Ill. App. 3d 765, 771.) We are mindful that voluntariness must be determined from the totality of the circumstances, and that other factors, including age, intelligence, experience, length of time and intensity of interrogation, as well as prior refusals to answer questions, are to be considered. Yet, in the instant case, consideration of those factors indicates the involuntariness of the statements made by defendant. He had previously refused to answer questions about any involvement. Only after the inducement by Detective Lage, holding forth the promise of lenient treatment and his own willingness to testify for him at court, did the defendant confess. Further, this defendant was 19 at the time, with only a ninth-grade education. Given these factors, and the lack of others indicating voluntariness, I would find that the trial court was in error in concluding that the confession was voluntarily made by Eckles. The conclusion that People v. Hubbard (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 142, 302 N.E.2d 609, controls the instant case must be rejected. The issue in Hubbard received a two-sentence treatment. (55 Ill. 2d 142, 152.) Moreover, in Hubbard, the facts indicated that the defendant’s initial statements came before any promises or suggestions of leniency and the defendant, in his statement, stated that no promises had been made of any kind. (55 Ill. 2d 142, 149-50.) As to other cases cited by the State, it is sufficient to point out that this case involves more than the mere exhortation to tell the truth and more than unsubstantiated hope by the defendant that his cooperation will be reciprocated by lenient treatment. As detailed previously, the officer here promised to speak to the State’s Attorney on the defendant’s behalf, and to testify in court. Accordingly, I would find the court erred in its conclusion that the defendant’s statement was voluntarily given, and I would reverse the conviction.