State v. Talayumptewa, 2015 NMCA 008

Defendant Talayumptewa voluntarily came to the McKinley County Sheriff’s Office after police sought to interview him about a sexual-assault allegation.
Two officers (Ashley and Pena) questioned Defendant for ~90 minutes; Defendant made oral statements and wrote an apology letter during the interview.
Defendant was not given Miranda warnings but the district court found he was not in custody and Miranda did not apply.
Defendant moved to suppress, arguing his statements were involuntary because officers made promises (implied or express) of leniency that induced his statements.
The district court suppressed the statements, finding numerous implied promises of leniency overbore Defendant’s will; the State appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the transcript showed officers repeatedly conveyed they could influence charging/penalties and that Defendant sought to avoid jail, so statements were involuntary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers made implied promises of leniency	Statements merely highlighted real consequences and urged truthfulness; charging decisions were for D.A.	Officers’ comments (e.g., we can help, charges could be reduced) amounted to implied/express promises inducing confession	Officers’ statements were properly viewed as implied promises of leniency
Whether any promise was an express promise that makes confession involuntary as a matter of law	N/A — State argued no coercive promise	Defendant argued Officer Ashley’s "almost down to nothing" was an express promise	Not an express guarantee; statements were implied promises, not unequivocal express promises
Whether Defendant’s statements were voluntary under totality of circumstances	Voluntariness supported by voluntary station visit, told he was free to leave, not visibly intoxicated; D.A. decision repeated	Defendant argued repeated implied promises and his expressed desire to avoid jail showed coercion induced statements	Totality shows coercion: implied promises + Defendant’s admissions he wanted to avoid jail made statements involuntary; suppression affirmed
Burden of proof on voluntariness	State must prove voluntariness by preponderance	N/A	State failed to meet burden; confession involuntary as a matter of law

State v. Evans, 146 N.M. 319 (N.M. 2009) (standard for reviewing voluntariness and threats/promises as coercion)
State v. Munoz, 126 N.M. 535 (N.M. 1998) (test for whether accused could reasonably infer a promise affecting punishment)
State v. Tindle, 104 N.M. 195 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986) (express promise of leniency renders confession involuntary as a matter of law)
State v. Gutierrez, 150 N.M. 232 (N.M. 2011) (implied promises are a factor in totality-of-circumstances voluntariness analysis)
State v. Lobato, 139 N.M. 431 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (distinguishing promises of treatment from promises affecting punishment)
State v. Sanders, 129 N.M. 728 (N.M. 2000) (promising only to bring cooperation to prosecutor’s attention is not objectionable)
State v. Barr, 146 N.M. 301 (N.M. 2009) (confession coerced when will is overborne; context for promises to speak to D.A.)