State v. Phillips
30 S.W.3d 372, 2000 WL 336960, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 284 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A confession is involuntary and thus inadmissible under the Tennessee Constitution when obtained through coercive official conduct that overbears the defendant's will, such as a combination of deliberate misrepresentations about evidence, threats of prosecution, and promises of treatment conditioned solely upon confessing.
Facts:
- An investigator with the Department of Children's Services requested that Daniel Phillips come to their office for an interview regarding allegations of sexual misconduct.
- Phillips voluntarily drove himself to the interview on May 8, 1998, where he was interrogated for approximately one hour by two investigators, Mardell Mullins and Stacey Griffin.
- For much of the interview, Phillips steadfastly and repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
- Investigator Mullins falsely told Phillips they possessed DNA evidence ('a D & A smear of male ejaculate in this child’s vagina') that would prove his guilt, later admitting she knew this was untrue.
- The investigators repeatedly told Phillips that if he did not confess, law enforcement would get involved and he would go to prison, but if he did confess, they could provide him and his stepdaughter with 'free treatment programs.'
- The investigators explicitly stated that Phillips would not be accepted into any treatment program unless he admitted guilt.
- After these tactics, Phillips conceded to sexual misconduct, claiming he was drunk and mistook his stepdaughter for his wife.
- Two weeks later, Phillips returned and signed a written statement prepared by the investigators, which he could not read himself and had to have read to him.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Tennessee indicted Daniel Phillips in the Anderson County Criminal Court (trial court) on two counts of child rape.
- Phillips filed a pretrial motion to suppress his confession, arguing it was made involuntarily.
- The trial court conducted a suppression hearing, heard testimony, reviewed the interrogation transcript, and granted the defendant's motion, suppressing the statement.
- The State of Tennessee, as appellant, filed a direct appeal as of right to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, arguing that the suppression order was equivalent to a dismissal of the indictment.
- Daniel Phillips is the appellee in this appeal.
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 combination of deceptive interrogation tactics, including false claims about having DNA evidence, threats of definite prosecution, and promises of treatment explicitly conditioned on confessing, render a subsequent confession involuntary and inadmissible?
Opinions:
Majority - Joe G. Riley
Yes, a confession obtained through such tactics is involuntary and inadmissible. Although the interrogation was non-custodial and did not require Miranda warnings, a confession must still be voluntary. The test for voluntariness is whether the state officials' behavior was 'such as to overbear petitioner’s will to resist and bring about confessions not freely self-determined.' A review of the interrogation transcript reveals a combination of misrepresentations about having DNA evidence, threats that law enforcement would intervene if he did not confess, and promises of treatment available only if he fully confessed. Unlike the interrogators' remarks in State v. Smith, which were 'on the line,' the actions here were 'much more coercive' and 'crossed the line,' rendering the defendant's statement involuntary.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundary between permissible interrogation strategies and unconstitutional psychological coercion under the Tennessee Constitution, which is noted as being more protective than the federal standard. The court establishes that while one tactic alone might not render a confession involuntary, the cumulative effect of deliberate factual misrepresentations, direct threats, and conditional promises of leniency can 'cross the line.' This case serves as a precedent limiting the use of deceptive tactics by state agents, particularly the fabrication of scientific evidence, to secure incriminating statements from suspects in non-custodial settings.
