California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from In re Daniel P., 2d Juv. No. B198711 (Cal. App. 4/21/2008), 2d Juv. No. B198711 (Cal. App. 2008):
"'It is well settled that a confession is involuntary and therefore inadmissible if it was elicited by any promise of benefit or leniency whether express or implied. [Citations.] However, mere advice or exhortation by the police that it would be better for the accused to tell the truth when unaccompanied by either a threat or promise does not render a subsequent confession involuntary. . . .'" (People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 115.) An improper promise by police does not require exclusion of a confession unless "the promise was a motivating factor in the giving of the statement." (People v. Vasila (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 865, 874.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.