## Facts

- A convenience store was robbed at gunpoint; the incident was captured on surveillance video.
- Police suspected Jami Del Swanigan and questioned him at the station for about 75 minutes regarding that robbery and other robberies.
- During questioning, officers falsely claimed they had Swanigan’s fingerprints and video evidence placing him at the scene.
- Officers repeatedly urged Swanigan to “tell the truth” and emphasized cooperation.
- Officers suggested cooperation would reduce charging exposure (e.g., one robbery rather than five).
- Officers threatened that if Swanigan did not confess, they would tell the county attorney he was uncooperative and the attorney would refuse any plea deal.
- Swanigan initially denied involvement, later made incriminating admissions, and then partially retracted after being shown a still photo from the surveillance video.
- A later psychological evaluation indicated Swanigan had an IQ of 76 and was susceptible to anxiety.

## Issues

1. Whether Swanigan’s statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, considering deception, implied benefits, threats tied to charging/plea bargaining, and Swanigan’s intellectual and psychological characteristics.
2. Whether specific interrogation tactics (misrepresenting evidence, promising to convey cooperation, exhorting truthfulness, and threatening use of noncooperation) rendered the confession involuntary.
3. Whether a later statement given after Miranda warnings was tainted by earlier coercion and lacked sufficient attenuation.
4. Whether admitting an involuntary confession is subject to harmless-error review on appeal.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reversed the district court’s denial of suppression.
- The court held Swanigan’s confession was involuntary under the totality of the circumstances.
- The court held the coercive aspects of the interrogation tainted the later Mirandized statement; the State failed to show attenuation.
- The court held erroneous admission of an involuntary confession is subject to harmless-error review and disapproved contrary language in prior Kansas precedent.

## Legal Principles

- Voluntariness is assessed under the totality of the circumstances, including interrogation duration and manner, ability to communicate with the outside world, the accused’s age/intellect/background, and officers’ fairness; the core question is whether the statement was the product of the accused’s free and independent will.
- Appellate review of suppression rulings: factual findings are reviewed for substantial competent evidence; the ultimate legal conclusion is reviewed de novo.
- Police misrepresentation about evidence implicating a suspect does not alone make a confession involuntary; it is evaluated with all surrounding circumstances.
- An officer’s offer to convey a suspect’s cooperation to the prosecutor and an exhortation to tell the truth are generally insufficient, standing alone, to render a confession involuntary.
- Threatening to use a suspect’s lack of cooperation against the suspect in charging or plea decisions is inconsistent with the Fifth Amendment; it is not per se dispositive but is a factor in the voluntariness analysis.
- A finding of involuntariness based on state coercion requires a causal link between the coercive conduct and the confession.
- Whether an earlier coerced statement taints a later Mirandized statement turns on attenuation factors, including time between statements, change of location and interrogators, the purpose and flagrancy of prior misconduct, and intervening circumstances.
- Admission of an involuntary confession is reviewed for harmless error; the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not affect the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court suppressed Swanigan’s statements because cumulative deception and threats tied to charging and plea bargaining, viewed alongside his limited intellectual functioning and anxiety susceptibility, overbore his will; the later Mirandized statement was not sufficiently attenuated, and involuntary-confession errors are evaluated under harmless-error review.


State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18, 106 P.3d 39 (Kan. 2005)