State v. Kelly
1980 Tenn. LEXIS 486, 603 S.W. 2d 726 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A confession induced by a law enforcement officer's promise of leniency is not rendered involuntary per se. The confession is admissible if, under the totality of the circumstances, the promise was not so compelling or coercive as to overbear the defendant's will to resist.
Facts:
- On September 21, 1976, a stereo and speaker were stolen from a residence in Hamblen County.
- A few days later, investigators recovered the stolen items after speaking with a co-defendant.
- On September 26, 1976, police arrested the defendant, 18-year-old Kelly.
- After Kelly was advised of his Miranda rights and signed a waiver, Officer Trippy interrogated him.
- During the interrogation, Officer Trippy told Kelly that if he confessed, it would be 'easier' for him, that the officer would ask the District Attorney not to resist a probation hearing, but that the officer himself could not grant probation.
- Following Officer Trippy's statement, Kelly confessed to committing the burglary.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Kelly, was convicted of second-degree burglary in the trial court.
- During trial, the defendant made a motion to suppress his confession, which the trial court denied after a hearing, ruling the confession was voluntary.
- Kelly, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court's conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the confession was induced by a promise of leniency and should have been suppressed.
- The State of Tennessee, as petitioner, was granted certiorari review by the Supreme Court of Tennessee (the state's highest court) to consider the admissibility of the confession.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a law enforcement officer's statement to a defendant that the officer would ask the District Attorney not to resist a probation hearing, while clarifying the officer had no authority to grant probation himself, render the defendant's subsequent confession involuntary and thus inadmissible?
Opinions:
Majority - Brock, C.J.
No. An officer's promise to ask the District Attorney not to oppose probation does not automatically render a confession involuntary. Applying the standard from Rogers v. Richmond, the central question is whether the officer's behavior was such as to overbear the defendant's will to resist and bring about a confession that was not freely self-determined. The court found that Officer Trippy's promise was 'too indefinite and insubstantial' to be coercive. In assessing the totality of the circumstances, the court considered that Kelly was 18 years old, had an eighth-grade education, had received Miranda warnings, was in custody for only about an hour, and was not mistreated. The promise was not a direct guarantee of leniency but rather an offer to advocate on his behalf, a distinction that prevents it from being coercive enough to render the confession involuntary.
Analysis:
This decision refines the standard for voluntariness of confessions in the context of promises of leniency. It moves away from a strict interpretation of Bram v. United States, which suggested any promise, 'however slight,' could invalidate a confession. Instead, the court adopts a more flexible 'totality of the circumstances' test focused on whether the defendant's will was actually overborne. This precedent clarifies that vague or conditional offers of help from law enforcement are less likely to be deemed coercive than direct, binding promises. It provides courts a framework for distinguishing between impermissible coercion and permissible police tactics that may induce a confession without nullifying a defendant's free will.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Kelly