State v. Rodriguez-Aquino

Confessions are presumptively involuntary and the burden lies with the interrogator to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant’s will was not overcome by the inducement held out by the interrogator. State v. Vasquez-Santiago, 301 Or App 90, 106, 456 P3d 270 (2019); State v. Powell, 352 Or 210, 222, 282 P3d 845 (2012).

Defendant appealed convictions of fourth-degree assault and harassment and assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to exclude statements which he made regarding his infant son’s injuries. Defendant claimed the statements were produced from unlawful inducement. Defendant argued that because his statements were predicated on promises of leniency, whereby “help” was offered as an alternative to prosecution, the statements were involuntary. In the alternative, Defendant argued his statements were involuntary as a result of the circumstances of the interrogation. The State responded that Defendant’s confession was properly admitted because it was not induced by threats or promises, and not otherwise involuntary, supported by the facts that Defendant was given Miranda rights, access to a bathroom, drinks, food, and did not ask to terminate questioning. Confessions are presumptively involuntary and the burden lies with the interrogator to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant’s will was not overcome by the inducement held out by the interrogator. State v. Vasquez-Santiago, 301 Or App 90, 106, 456 P3d 270 (2019); State v. Powell, 352 Or 210, 222, 282 P3d 845 (2012). The Court reviewed the interrogation and held the detective's statements indicating he could influence DHS’s involvement and help Defendant’s family were problematic. The Court reasoned that the State did not meet its burden in overcoming the presumption that Defendant’s confession was induced. Reversed and remanded.