Sovalik v. State
612 P.2d 1003, 1980 Alas. LEXIS 701 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A confession is considered voluntary and admissible if, under the totality of the circumstances, it was the product of the suspect's free will. Police trickery or a delay in arraignment do not automatically render a confession involuntary; they are merely factors to be considered in the overall assessment of coercion.
Facts:
- On August 29, 1977, the bodies of Gregory Jay Underwood and Donna Hendershot were discovered in a tent, both having died from multiple shotgun wounds.
- Police conducted a six-day investigation, interviewing over thirty people, including Thomas Sovalik, who was staying in a tent approximately three-quarters of a mile from the crime scene.
- Sovalik initially denied any knowledge of the victims or the incident.
- On September 4, 1977, police brought Sovalik to the station for a second interview.
- During the interview, Police Chief Kim Moeller bluffed by showing Sovalik a random fingerprint from a bulletin board and falsely claiming it was Sovalik's fingerprint found on a water bottle belonging to the victims.
- In response to the bluff, Sovalik stated, "all I took was a flashlight."
- After being read his Miranda rights, Sovalik first invoked his right to remain silent, but later consented to a search of his home and turned over the flashlight.
- Several hours later, while in custody, Sovalik was again read his Miranda rights, signed a waiver, and confessed to shooting into the victims' tent.
Procedural Posture:
- Prior to trial, Sovalik’s counsel filed a motion in the trial court to suppress all of Sovalik’s statements and any physical evidence resulting from them.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a jury trial, Sovalik was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder.
- The trial court sentenced Sovalik to concurrent terms of life imprisonment.
- Sovalik (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Alaska, arguing his confessions were obtained involuntarily.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the totality of the circumstances, is a confession involuntary when it is obtained after police use a deceptive tactic regarding fingerprint evidence and there is a delay in presenting the suspect to a magistrate?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthews, Justice
No, the confession is not involuntary. A confession is admissible if it is voluntary, a determination made by considering the totality of the circumstances to see if the suspect's will was overborne by coercion. In this case, Sovalik's age (19), low-average intelligence, and difficulty with English were weighed against his extensive prior experience with law enforcement. The interrogation was not prolonged or abusive, and police were solicitous of his physical needs. The police artifice—lying about the fingerprint—is a factor, but it was not coercive and was not the type of trickery that would produce an untruthful confession. Similarly, the delay in presenting Sovalik to a magistrate was not coercive in this instance, as he confessed within hours of being placed in a cell on a Sunday. Considering all these factors, there is ample evidence to support the trial court's finding that the confessions were given voluntarily.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the flexible 'totality of the circumstances' test for determining the voluntariness of a confession in Alaska. It establishes that police deception, while a relevant factor, does not per se invalidate a confession unless the tactic is inherently coercive or likely to elicit a false statement. The ruling also clarifies that a delay in arraignment is not grounds for automatic suppression but is just one of many factors to be weighed, giving law enforcement more latitude in post-arrest interrogations. This case provides a clear example of how courts balance a suspect's individual characteristics against the specific police conduct involved to determine if a confession was truly the product of free will.
