Cited by

We determine whether a confession is voluntary by examining the totality of the circumstances to decide “whether the will of the defendant [was] overborne.”

Where a single act violates more than one statute and there is no evidence of legislative intent to repeal one of them, the government has the option of prosecuting under either.” (internal citations omitted)); (“When conduct can be prosecuted under two or more statutes, the prosecutor has the discretion to determine which statute to apply.”).

(finding autopsy photos were not inflammatory when “the crime committed was so atrocious that photographs could add little to the repugnance” of the charges) (quotation omitted).

(listing factors—including the accused’s age and intelligence level, the length of detention, and whether the accused received a constitutional-rights advisory—to assess whether the accused’s will was overborne).

“Promises of benefits or leniency, whether direct or implied, even if only slight in value, are impermissibly coercive.”

In evaluating voluntariness, “the trial court must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession and decide whether the will of the defendant [was] overborne.”

When evaluating voluntariness, “the trial court must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession and decide whether the will of the defendant has been overborne.” (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226 (1973)).

("The trial court is required to impose restitution to reimburse the victim for the full amount of his economic loss."); ("A trial court may order restitution be paid to others who have indemnified victims for losses caused by criminal acts.").

“Promises of benefits or leniency, whether direct or implied, even if only slight in value, are impermissibly coercive.”

(“Such photographs cannot be deemed sufficiently gruesome to inflame the jurors because ‘the crime committed was so atrocious that photographs could add little to the repugnance felt by anyone who heard the testimony.’” (citation omitted)); ¶ 46 (2012) (“[T]here i

In evaluating voluntariness, “the trial court must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession and decide whether the will of the defendant [was] overborne.”

3 STATE v. TRACY Decision of the Court “look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession and decide whether the will of the defendant has been overborne.”

“Choosing which offense to charge and prosecute is within the discretion of the prosecutor.”

When a defendant can be prosecuted under two separate statutes for the same conduct, “the prosecutor has the discretion to determine which statute to apply,” so long as that election does not discriminate against a particular class of defendants

In evaluating voluntariness, the court must “look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession and decide whether the will of the defendant has been 9 STATE v. YOUNG Decision of the Court overborne.”

(child abuse is not a lesser-included offense of murder and does not merge into homicide).

-44, -91 (1992) (cruelty finding based, in part, on one- year-old’s mental anguish, knowing that his father had severely beaten him and “did nothing to stop the pain and comfort him”).4 4 Because we conclude that the (F)(6) ag

(finding alleged inducement irrelevant when incriminating statement occurred beforehand).3 More importantly, the detective did not promise leniency.

“When conduct can be prosecuted under two or more statutes, the prosecutor has discretion to determine which statute to apply.”

“The statute does not draw a distinction between a person who intends to kill another by fire and one who only intends to burn down a dwelling house and accidentally kills one of the occupants.” Id.; -42, - 89 (1992) (distinguishing Essman).

inion concerning the character trait is well-founded.” -11 , -75 (1989) (holding that the prosecutor was entitled to ask defendant’s character witnesses, who attested to defendant’s untruthfulness and propensity “to fabricate stories, of criminal exploits,” whether he had boasted of two crimes that he had in fact committed); , (holding that it was harmless error in felony murder and child abuse ease to preclude appellant from offering character witnesses in part because the prosecutor would have