## Facts

- In 1982, Oreste C. Fulminante’s 11-year-old stepdaughter disappeared in Mesa, Arizona; her body was found two days later with two gunshot wounds and a ligature around her neck.
- Fulminante became a suspect due to inconsistencies in his accounts to police, then left Arizona and was later incarcerated in federal prison on firearms charges.
- In prison, inmate Anthony Sarivola, a paid FBI informant, approached Fulminante amid rumors that Fulminante had killed a child.
- Sarivola offered Fulminante “protection” from other inmates and requested the “truth”; Fulminante confessed and described the killing.
- After release, Fulminante separately confessed to Sarivola’s wife, Donna Sarivola.
- At Fulminante’s Arizona murder trial, the prosecution relied heavily on the two confessions and circumstantial evidence; he was convicted and sentenced to death.

## Issues

1. Whether Fulminante’s confession to Anthony Sarivola was involuntary under the totality of the circumstances due to coercion involving fear of physical violence.
2. Whether admission of an involuntary confession is a “structural defect” requiring automatic reversal or a “trial error” subject to Chapman harmless-error review.
3. If harmless-error review applies, whether admission of the involuntary confession (and the related second confession) was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Court agreed that the confession to Anthony Sarivola was involuntary and improperly admitted under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The Court held that erroneous admission of an involuntary confession is a trial error subject to Chapman v. California harmless-error analysis, not a structural defect requiring automatic reversal.
- Applying Chapman, the Court held the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the confessions played a determinative role in the prosecution’s case.
- The Court affirmed the order for a new trial, but on the ground that the error was not harmless rather than on a categorical rule against harmless-error review.

## Legal Principles

- Voluntariness of a confession is assessed under the totality of the circumstances; a confession is involuntary if obtained by coercion that overbears the suspect’s will, including fear of physical violence.
- Promises of protection in a prison setting, coupled with a credible threat of inmate violence if protection is withheld, can render a confession involuntary.
- Constitutional errors are classified as either trial errors (reviewable for harmlessness) or structural defects (requiring automatic reversal).
- Admission of an involuntary confession is a trial error subject to Chapman harmless-error review; the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.
- Because confessions are uniquely powerful evidence, appellate courts must scrutinize the record carefully when assessing whether their erroneous admission was harmless.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Fulminante’s prison confession was coerced and that coerced-confession errors are reviewed for harmlessness under Chapman; because the prosecution relied centrally on the confessions, their admission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and a new trial was required.


Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991)