Lee v. State, 12 A.3d 1238

In Sept. 2006, Eric Fountain was fatally shot; Randy Hudson assaulted and robbed; informant leads police to three suspects including Lee.
Lee is arrested Sept. 9, 2006; Detective Schrott interrogates him starting 12:38 p.m. at police headquarters; interrogation is recorded.
Warnings mirandized, Lee reads and understands rights, waives rights in writing, and discusses involvement in the Dundalk incident.
During questioning, Lee initially denies involvement, then, after questions, admits to being in the house and later confesses to shooting Fountain.
Mid-interrogation, Detective Schrott tells Lee, "This is between you and me, bud. Only you and me here, all right?" which implies confidentiality.
Lee seeks suppression of statements as tainted by the mid-interrogation remark; the suppression court denies suppression; Lee is convicted of felony murder, burglary, assaults, and handgun offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the mid-interrogation confidentiality remark vitiate Miranda waivers?	Lee argues the remark undermined the warnings and rendered the waiver involuntary.	State contends the remark did not render the waiver involuntary and did not invalidate the confessions.	Yes; the remark vitiated the Miranda waiver and rendered subsequent statements inadmissible for the State’s case.
Should the jury-note response be considered on appeal?	Lee contends the court’s response to the jury note was improper and prejudicial.	State contends the response was adequate given the instructions already provided.	The Court remands for reconsideration of the jury-note issue; the decision on this issue is not reached on the current record.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966) (warning that statements can be used in court; foundational Miranda rights)
Hopkins v. Cockrell, 325 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 2003) (confidentiality promises after warnings can invalidate waiver)
Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1959) (voluntariness test in interrogation context; police overreaching)
Spence v. State, 281 Ga. 697 (Ga. 2007) (confidentiality assurances can render statements inadmissible)
Pillar v. State, 359 N.J. Super. 249 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2003) (off-the-record statements violate Miranda by undermining warnings)
Braeseke v. Superior Court, 25 Cal.3d 691 (Cal. 1979) (off-record request cannot override Miranda warnings)