Overview: A California appellate court recently ruled that an involuntary confession motivated by an officer’s false promises of leniency was not admissible at trial. During the interrogation, the officer repeatedly asserted that the defendant could avoid a life sentence if he admitted to an unpremeditated murder during a “robbery gone wrong.” Under the felony-murder rule, this was false. From these circumstances, the court concluded that the defendant’s confession was involuntary and obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Finding that the improper admission of the confession was “not harmless” but prejudicial, the court reversed the defendant’s convictions for murder and robbery.

Training Points: This case is a reminder of the dangers associated with being too creative in attempting to obtain facts from suspects during the interviewing process. Officers must be mindful of the state of the law regarding coerced interrogations, particularly with respect to making assertions and promises about subsequent charging by the DA and about possible sentencing by a criminal court. As a general rule, it is best to focus upon obtaining the facts without speculation about the outcome of the criminal justice process to ensure that any information received was the product of a voluntary confession. The fruit of this tree is, and always will be, poisonous.

Summary Analysis: In People v. Westmoreland, Westmoreland and his girlfriend lured a man from a bar to a vacant apartment in order to rob him. Westmoreland brought a steak knife to scare the man, but ended up stabbing him. He was arrested and questioned about the murder. He waived his Miranda rights. During the interview, Westmoreland stated fears that he would be sentenced to life in prison if he admitted the murder. The officer consistently emphasized that Westmoreland could avoid a life sentence if he admitted killing the victim in the robbery, but without pre-planning to. Westmoreland confessed that he “did not mean to kill” the man who “got stabbed” in the struggle. He was convicted of felony murder and robbery. Westmoreland argued that the trial court erred in admitting his confession. The appellate court agreed, finding that the confession, procured by false promises of leniency, was involuntary, inadmissible and prejudicial to the outcome of the case. As such, the court reversed the convictions for murder and robbery.  

Follow-Up Contact: For questions regarding this case or its implications for your city and police department, please contact Paul Cappitelli, BB&K’s law enforcement specialist, G. Ross Trindle, III, police attorney, or your BB&K attorney.