WPCf! # VU:a % 0 P4 0 0D w@ U>, 0Jj 0T 0l t 0^| 0h 0rB b 0| 08 e 0 1uXU, 0d B]U,zU * D3U6 0@B) DC2 AMu:]Yf v~pv AO 0D D/! BI!HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ,rAZ"Arial RegularX(( $  b t3|x (D(3?d$  !      0  (#$  0   { | }   U E  Ӏ  <( 9Z &Courier Regular2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  (D3<6$  !   2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  - -2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23   2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial$$$$'dxd !)       )  <  9p`(Courier New("$    % Line 7 d....7Border 1dd-/C << G 0 !  #d#)       )   YYY FILED)X June17,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.)AppellateCourtClerk  S !  #d#)       )  )  .TDG:\CLERKS\OPINION\TSC\HUDDLEST.CONTG:\CLERKS\OPINION\TSC\HUDDLEST.CON/   !#d#)       )   \ !#d#)       $       ,,InReadus,thetrialcourtreasonedthatthepassageofRule5(a)withoutacomplementarystatutesimilarto18U.S.C.3501(c)(clarifyingthatdelaydoesnot perse invalidateaconfession)resultedinanadoptionofthesocalledMcNabbMalloryruleinTennessee.InMcNabbandMallory,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatconfessionsproducedduringperiodsofunnecessarydelaybetweenconfinementandappearancemustbeexcludedregardlessofvoluntariness.Malloryv.UnitedStates,354U.S.449(1957);McNabbv.UnitedStates,318U.S.332(1943).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &((Xd&#((Xd#)       +  , \RA'\,ԛ7 T XXdd7  &Xd&Ӝ@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATJACKSONSTATEOFTENNESSEE   )  FORPUBLICATION      ) Appellee,    )      )      )v.      ) GIBSONCIRCUIT      )      )    BENJAMINHUDDLESTON,  ) Hon.DickJermanJr.,JudgeٜL01/;+'h|-` . `Lߛ      ) Appellant.   )       )       )      ) No.02S019410CC00069     ̀ CONCURRINGOPINION    2` X.hX Iconcurintheresultreachedbythemajoritythatthedefendant'sconfessionwasnotadmissibleandthatthecaseberemandedforretrial. Iwriteseparatelybecause,inmyview,furtheranalysisoftheRule5(a)issueisnecessary. IagreethatviolationofRule5(a)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProceduredoesnotrequiretheexclusionofaconfessionineverycase.However,eventhoughthemajorityrecognizesthatincarcerationisinherentlycoerciveandcustodialinterrogationisoftenutilizedtoinduceconfessions,itapparentlygavelittleeffecttothatfactorinitsexaminationofthe"totalityofthecircumstances"inthiscase. &Xd&3֜ TheassessmentoftheimpactofablatantviolationofRule5(a)isaidedbyanexaminationofthehistoryandpurposeoftherule.BeforetheadoptionofRule5(a),asectionofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedrequiredthatpersonsarrestedby"privatepersons"betakenbeforeamagistrateoranofficer"withoutunnecessarydelay."Whilenosimilarprovisionexistedforarrestsbypoliceofficers,anothersectionprovidedthat"[n]opersoncanbecommittedtoprisonforanycriminalmatter,untilexaminationthereofbefirsthadbeforesomemagistrate."Wynnv.State,181S.W.2d332,334(Tenn.1944)(quotingTenn.CodeAnn.11544,11515(1932)).Thepurposeofthesestatuteswastoassurethevitalityofthepresumptionofinnocence.Thus,onearrestedbyacitizenorofficerwithouttheinterventionofaneutraldeterminationofprobablecausewasrequiredtobetakenpromptlybeforeamagistrate.Themagistrate'srole,thenasnow,wastoassurethatconstitutionalrightswereprotected.Amongthoserightswerethepresumptionofinnocence,therighttobail,therighttocounsel,andtherighttobefreefromselfincrimination. Confessionsgivenduringwarrantless,unsafeguardedperiodsofpretrialincarcerationweresuspectbecausetheyweregivenatatimewhenapresumptivelyinnocentaccusedwasbeingheldillegallywithoutthebenefitofconstitutionalprotections.Thus,inordertodeterminetheadmissibilityoftheseconfessions,thecourtsfocusedonthecircumstancesofconfinementandthetreatmentoftheaccusedduringconfinement.Ina1943unpublisheddecision,thisCourtexcludedaconfessionmadeduringawarrantless,custodialinterrogationwhichwasdescribedasa"continuousgrilling."SeeWynnv.State,181S.W.2dat333.However,thatdecisionwasclarifiedbytheCourtthenextyearinWynnv.State.There,theCourtdeclinedtoexcludeconfessionsmadeduringa72hourwarrantlessdetentionfindingnoproof"ofanymistreatmentofdefendant."Id.at334.Thus,theCourtheldthatitwasnotthefactofawarrantlessdetentionthatyieldedtheconfessioninadmissiblebutrather"thetreatment...duringdetention."Id.;seealso,McGheev.State,189S.W.2d826,828(Tenn.1945). ThisgeneraltotalityapproachwasalsoadvancedafterthepassageofRule5(a)inadecisionoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsrelieduponbythemajority.InStatev.Readus,764S.W.2d770(Tenn.Crim.App.1988),cert.denied,(Tenn.1989),thetrialcourtexcludedaconfessionmadeduringabriefperiodofdelayinwhichtheaccusedwasheldwithoutawarrant. 4   ׀TheCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedandheldthat"ifthetotalityofthesurroundingcircumstancesindicatesthataconfessionwasvoluntarilygiven,itshallnotbeexcludedfromevidencesolelybecauseofdelayincarryingtheconfessorbeforeamagistrate."Id.at774. &Xd& ThefactswhichpromptedtheReadusdecisionarestrikinglydifferentfromthoseinthecaseatbar.Readuswasindictedforrapingayounggirlonherwaytoschool.Withinanhouroftherape,hewasarrestedwithoutawarrant.Hewastakentothehospitalfortheperformanceoftests.AfterbeingexplainedhisMirandarights,hechosetotalkandexculpatedhimself.Withinmoments,however,Readustoldthedetective,"Ineedsomehelp....Ineedtotalkaboutit."Lessthantwohoursafterthearrest,Readusconfessed.Atapedconfessionwasgiventwohourslater.Readuswastakenbeforeamagistrateapproximatelyeighthoursafterhiswarrantlessarrest.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsnotedthat"aviolationofRule5(a)couldresultinthesuppressionofaconfession,iftheviolationwasafactorinitsinvoluntariness,"butconcludedthatthedelayofeighthoursinthecasewasnotunnecessary,norwastheconfession,initiatedbyReadus,involuntary.Id.at772.TheholdinginReaduswasthatvoluntarinessisthecriticalstandardunderRule5(a)fordeterminingtheadmissibilityofconfessionsobtainedduringtheviolationofthatrule,andthecoercivenatureofextendedincarcerationisasignificantfactorindeterminingvoluntariness.Id.at774. BecausepretrialincarcerationisinherentlycoerciveandconfessionsgivenduringperiodsinwhichadefendantisbeingheldinviolationofRule5(a)areinherentlysuspect,theprocedurefordeterminingwhetheraconfessionwasvoluntaryisofcriticalimportance.IfthechallengedconfessionwasgivenwhilethedefendantwasbeingheldinviolationofRule5(a),theburdenisontheStatetoprovethatitwasvoluntarilymadeunderthetotalityofcircumstancesofthecase.Seegenerally,Statev.Hall,465N.W.2d150(Neb.1991);Statev.Smith,725P.2d894(Or.1986);DeConighv.State,433So.2d501(Fla.1983).Inadditiontothefactorsgenerallyrelevanttoadeterminationofvoluntariness,theproofmustaddresstheinherentlycoerciveeffectofcustodialinterrogation,whichincreasessubstantiallywitheachadditionalhourofisolatedcustody.Fortheconfessiontobeadmissible,thetotalityofthecircumstancesmustincludeevidenceofsomefactorcircumstancewhichwouldtendtoneutralizeorovercomethecoerciveeffectofprolongedincarceration.  SincetheproofinthiscasedoesnotincludeevidenceofanyfactororcircumstancewhichwouldtendtoneutralizeorovercomethecoerciveeffectofincarcerationinviolationofRule5(a),Iwouldholdthattheconfessionshouldhavebeensuppressedonthatgroundalso.     __________________________     Reid,J.CONCUR:White,J.)ԛ