Is a statement made by the police in a sexual assault case involuntary and inadmissible?

In People v. Hill (1967) 66 Cal.2d 536, 549, 58 Cal.Rptr. 340, 348, 426 P.2d 908, 916, it was stated: 'When the benefit pointed out by the police to a suspect is merely that which flows naturally from a truthful and honest course of conduct, we can perceive nothing improper in such police activity. On the other hand, if in addition to the foregoing benefit, or in the place thereof, the defendant is given to understand that he might reasonably expect benefits in the nature of more lenient treatment at the hands of the police, prosecution or court in consideration of making a statement, even a truthful one, such motivation is deemed to render the statement involuntary and inadmissible.' If Meyerherm's statement is viewed as offering any kind of benefit, it is concluded that there was nothing improper in the statement.