California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hogan, 183 Cal.Rptr. 817, 31 Cal.3d 815, 647 P.2d 93 (Cal. 1982):
In any event, it was the trial court's responsibility to resolve the conflicting evidence on the question of motivation. In the present case, following a careful examination of the recorded interviews and live testimony by defendant and the interrogating officers, the trial court concluded that, although defendant may not have deliberately lied regarding his motivation, the reason he "broke down" and confessed was "the type of questions that were being asked at that time," rather than any previous offer of medical assistance. The trial court denied on this very basis defendant's pretrial motion to exclude his statements, and accordingly we, in our appellate review, "must accept the trial court's resolution of conflicting evidence ...." (People v. Jimenez, supra, 21 Cal.3d 595, 607, 147 Cal.Rptr. 172, 580 P.2d 672.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.