Criminal Procedure — voluntary statements

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — voluntary statements

Even though an interrogator overstated the evidence against the defendant and provided him with incentives to give information, including a promise that he would not be jailed for the night if he told the “true story,” the statements were voluntary.

“We hold that the admission of Lemoine’s statements at trial was not error because, under the totality of the circumstances, the statements were voluntary. The well-established test for voluntariness balances the personal characteristics of the defendant against pressures imposed by law enforcement officers to determine if the pressures exceeded the defendant’s ability to resist. State v. Clappes, 136 Wis. 2d 222, 236, 401 N.W.2d 759 (1987). Nothing about Lemoine made him particularly vulnerable; he was 22 years old, had earned a high school equivalency diploma (HSED), held a job as a truck driver, was familiar with one of the interviewing officers, and was assertive enough to voice his discomfort with a female officer’s presence, a concern the police accommodated. The interrogator overstated the evidence against Lemoine and provided Lemoine with incentives to give information, including a promise that Lemoine would not be jailed for the night if he told the “true story.” When balanced, however, against the characteristics of Lemoine, the tactics used by the police in the 75 to 80 minute interrogation did not rise to the level of being coercive. Therefore, it was not error for the circuit court to admit the voluntary statements at trial. Accordingly, though our analysis differs from that of the court of appeals, we affirm its decision.”

Affirmed.

2010AP2597-CR State v. Lemoine

Crooks, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Hintze, Donna L., Madison; York, Katie R., Madison; For Respondent: Wellman, Sally L., Madison