How have the courts dealt with a defendant's claim that he was improperly coerced into continuing to speak to detectives after he had asked for a break?

Defendant contends that the detectives improperly coerced him into continuing the conversation when they told him they would be "precluded" from talking to him again if he chose to take a break until the next day. Defendant contends that the detectives statements were deceptive and that their deception undermined the voluntariness of his statements. "While the use of deception or communication of false information to a suspect does not alone render a resulting statement involuntary [citation], such deception is a factor which weighs against a finding of voluntariness." ( People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Cal.3d 815, 840841, 183 Cal.Rptr. 817, 647 P.2d 93.) Here, it was certainly an exaggeration for the detectives to tell defendant they would not be able to speak with him again, "period," if he took a break and spoke with a lawyer; represented suspects can, of course, speak with law enforcement officials if they choose. It is unclear whether the detectives intended to deceive defendant on this point; what the detectives may have meant to convey is that a lawyer would likely advise against speaking with detectivesmeaning that, from their perspective, they almost certainly would not have another opportunity to speak with defendant. But in any event, insofar as they spoke in absolutes, the detectives overstated the case. Regardless, we are not persuaded the statements rendered defendants statement involuntary. Just before the challenged exchange, the detectives had reminded defendant that he had the right to remain silent and the right to speak with a lawyer. Defendant responded to the exchange by asking for clarification about when a lawyer would contact him, then went on to ask whether he had been helpful to the detectives, and the conversation continued from there. The record does not support

[456 P.3d 970]

defendants claim that he was coerced into continuing to speak with detectives after he had asked for a break.

[257 Cal.Rptr.3d 828]

Defendant next contends the detectives employed other coercive interrogation tactics that rendered his confession involuntary. (See

[8 Cal.5th 935]