 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bunting6/6/2002
did not make significant references to capital murder and its lethal consequences. Furthermore, unlike the defendant in Rettenberger, Defendant did not parrot the facts supplied by the detectives to avoid a charge, see id. at , but provided his own version of events. Thus, we conclude that Defendant's free will was not overcome by any threats or any suggestions of leniency.
Defendant also argues the detectives coerced incriminating statements with the false friend technique. In employing this technique, officials "represent to [a defendant] that they his friends and that they acting in his best interest." Id. at . Standing alone, this technique is not "sufficiently coercive to produce an involuntary confession," but may be significant "in relation to other tactics and factors." Id. at .
Although at the beginning of the interview, the detectives suggested that they would act on Defendant's behalf in going to the district attorney, the detectives did not explicitly tell Defendant that they were trying to help him and were trying to make him look good until after he made his admission about introducing Freon into Son's bathwater. Further, throughout the interview, Defendant did not merely accept the "false claims" against him. See id. In fact, he refused to parrot any suggestions that he murdered Son, pushed Son under the water, hit or shook Son, lost his temper, or staged the crime scene. Moreover, the trial court found that Defendant's psychological condition did not impair his ability to respond to the detectives' interrogation tactics. Thus, we conclude Defendant was not susceptible to the false friend technique, unlike the defendant in Rettenberger. See id. at .
Defendant additionally argues the detectives intentionally played upon his vulnerable mental and psychological conditions to induce incriminating statements. " confession may be suppressed in circumstances in which a police officer knows of a suspect's mental illness or deficiencies at the time of the interrogation and effectively exploits those weaknesses to obtain a confession." Id. at (emphasis added).
Defendant focuses on the fact that the detectives developed a psychological profile of him and then used interrogation tactics based on that profile. Psychological profiling and interrogation based on that profiling are not fatal to an interrogation. Rather, the focus is on whether the interrogation was coercive. Furthermore, Defendant does not specifically challenge the trial court's conclusion that his psychological condition did not affect his ability to respond independently or appropriately to the detectives' questions. Nor does he in any way challenge the trial court's findings underlying its conclusion. The trial court specifically noted that nothing in the videotape suggested that Defendant was intoxicated or that his psychological condition was such that he was unable to respond appropriately or independently even when pressed by the detectives. Thus, we conclude the detectives' tactics did not exploit any known mental or psychological condition of Defendant.
CONCLUSION
In sum, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that under the totality of the circumstances, neither Defendant's understanding nor his ability to exercise free will and make reasonable decisions as to how to respond to the detectives' questions were overcome by the detectives' tactics, Defendant's alcoholism, or any psychological condition, individually or combined. Thus, we affirm.
WE CONCUR:
James Z. Davis, Judge
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|