State v. Pryor

During questioning, a promise may be found to be improper inducement if the questioner “communicates the idea of a temporal benefit or disadvantage… in exchange for a confession,” and that offer is then accepted in order to get the benefit. State v. Chavez-Meza, 301 Or App 373, 387 (2019); State v. Simmons, 302 Or App 133, 139 (2020).

Defendant appealed a conviction of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse. Defendant assigned error to the denial of a motion to suppress in regards to his confession to the police. Defendant argued that the confession should have been suppressed as the confession was “induced by a promise of leniency, in violation of ORS 136.425(1), and otherwise involuntary in violation of Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution.” During questioning, a promise may be found to be improper inducement if the questioner “communicates the idea of a temporal benefit or disadvantage… in exchange for a confession,” and that offer is then accepted in order to get the benefit. State v. Chavez-Meza, 301 Or App 373, 387 (2019); State v. Simmons, 302 Or App 133, 139 (2020). The Court found that the officer’s statements, taken out of context, could potentially rise to the level of unlawful inducement, however, taking the interrogation and statements in their entirety, an exchange was never proposed by the officer to get defendant to admit guilt.  Furthermore, looking at the voluntariness of the confession as a whole without inducement, “[d]efendant confessed on his own terms. His capacity for free will was not overborne.” Affirmed.