Court Opinion

ID: 9576479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:25:02.698669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:40.107318
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
concurring specially.
I cannot agree with all that is said in Division 1. The majority say that no separate hearing (or judicial determination) on the voluntariness of a confession is required where the confession is offered only for purposes of impeachment. In other words, the majority say that an involuntary confession may be used for purposes of impeachment. For this proposition, they cite Harris v. New York, supra, and its progeny in Georgia. In Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (98 SC 2408, 57 LE2d 290) (1978), the Harris rule was limited to Miranda violations. In Mincey the court held that any use (in a criminal trial), even use solely for impeachment, of an involuntary statement, violates due process. 437 U.S. at 398.
Here, however, the defendant admitted while testifying that his confession had been made freely and voluntarily. I therefore concur in the judgment.