State v. Clark, 799 S.E.2d 192

On March 4, 2008, William Clark called 911 after fatally assaulting Deborah Jeffries; officers arrested him at the scene and placed him in a patrol car while he bled from a hand wound.
Detective J.D. Stephens testified he read Clark his Miranda warnings at the scene while Clark was in the patrol car; Clark made some immediate statements there (not at issue on appeal).
Clark was taken to the hospital, released, and transported to the police station; Detective Stephens began a videotaped interview about seven minutes after Clark started speaking at the station; the recorded portion lasted ~33 minutes.
Less than 30 seconds into the recording Clark said, "This is off the record," and Detective Stephens responded, "Yeah." Clark continued to make lengthy, rambling inculpatory statements during the recording and for an additional ~40 minutes after an unrecorded break for paramedics.
At the suppression hearing, the trial court found Stephens read Miranda at the scene but did not ensure Clark understood his rights, and that Stephens’ affirmative response to "off the record" could reasonably be understood by Clark to mean his statements would not be used by police.
The trial court granted Clark's motion to suppress the videotaped custodial statement, concluding the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the stationhouse statements were voluntary; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Clark's Argument	Held
Whether Clark’s custodial statements at the station were voluntary and constituted a valid Miranda waiver	Miranda warnings given earlier at the scene satisfied waiver; statements admissible	Detective’s affirmative "yeah" to "off the record" nullified prior warnings and induced statements, so waiver was not knowing/ voluntary	Held for Clark: statements involuntary and inadmissible because officer’s affirmation created a false promise that vitiated Miranda waiver
Whether an officer must take steps to correct a suspect who says he wants to speak "off the record" after receiving Miranda warnings	Prior warnings need not always be repeated; Carswell relied on where warnings were later re-read and interviews separated in time	Officer had duty to disabuse suspect of belief that statements would be confidential; here no corrective steps were taken	Held for Clark: officer should have corrected the "off the record" misconception; failure to do so contributed to involuntariness

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (SCOTUS) (Miranda warnings and waiver requirements)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (SCOTUS) (waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; two-part inquiry)
Spence v. State, 281 Ga. 697 (Ga. 2007) (officer assurances of confidentiality can vitiate Miranda waiver)
State v. Pillar, 820 A.2d 1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003) (off-the-record assurance eviscerated prior warnings and rendered confession involuntary)
Carswell v. State, 268 Ga. 531 (Ga. 1997) (distinguishable where warnings were re-read and subsequent interview initiated by defendant)