ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µBÝ4 3 0lB 0D® ò w@ú 0J: 0T„ 0^Ø 0h6 0rž 0| 0†Œ 0 1u¢ 0dU>{ B¹U*ÖB)DC) AMlU*¹ D3ããnù 0@gv~§vÓ% AOøÆG 0D  D/Q B€˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTDÒ  Z 3|x((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó e•VDg«Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial$$$$'ÿÿdxd ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌNovember€12,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€majority€€finds€that€the€six„week€delay€between€defendant's€conversation€with€theÏà àDHS€worker€and€his€counseling€appointment€"belies€[the]€contention€that€WalkerÏà àà àcompelled€his€statements€to€the€counselor."€€I€disagree.€€Nothing€happened€duringÏthis€à àinterim€period€to€remove€the€very€clear€message€from€defendant's€mind:€€go€to€counseling,Ïà àadmit€the€act,€and€you€most€likely€will€be€reunited€with€your€family.€€Defendant€made€theÏà àappointment€indicating€a€desire€to€follow€the€DHS€worker's€instructions.€€Her€advice€hadÏà àto€that€point€been€validated€by€the€fact€that€he€had€not€been€arrested.€€Hence,€it€wasÏà àsensible€to€continue€to€follow€that€advice€at€the€counseling€session.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPt HHð@ÿìÿîRd(ühh° @d'ÿœÿ¦ šStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒØ ØÓ&€%%X8d&ÓÓÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œ›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÓÓÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONó óÌà àà àà àóóà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Seth€Norman,€JudgeÌNATHAN€SMITH,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01S01„9509„CR„00151Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€(+';+'h|JÿÛ` ç `€€Lß›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òDISSENTING€OPINIONó óÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWHITE,€J.ÌÌÓӜǛà àÔ€#¼ÔI€am€unable€to€agree€with€the€result€reached€by€the€majority€in€thisÏcase.€€While€the€analysis€of€the€case€under€òòMirandaóó€standards€is€certainlyÏaccurate,€it€does€not€follow€that€the€method€and€manner€of€interrogationÏshould€be€sanctioned€by€the€highest€court€in€the€state.€€Our€obligation€goesÏbeyond€following€well„established€precedent;€we€must€also€assure€thatÏfundamental€fairness€is€accomplished€in€our€courts.€€In€my€opinion,€theÏconclusion€reached€by€the€majority,€despite€its€consistency€with€priorÏdecisions,€is€fundamentally€unfair.€€Additionally,€the€opinion€encouragesÏthe€state€to€use€overreaching€methods€to€secure€confessions.€€I€cannot€agreeÏwith€the€result€in€this€case€or€the€consequences€of€such€a€decisions.ÌÌà àUnder€state€law,€the€Department€of€Human€Services€is€a€part€of€anÏinvestigatory€team€created€to€reduce€the€trauma€and€enhance€theÏeffectiveness€of€child€sexual€abuse€investigations.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„607(a)(3)(1991€€Supp.).€€The€other€team€members€include€a€representativeÏfrom€the€district€attorney's€office,€a€juvenile€court€officer€or€investigator,Ïand€a€law€enforcement€officer.€€The€statute€charges€the€team€with€the€dutyÏto€"preserve[]€any€evidence€for€future€criminal€prosecution."€€òòIdóó.€€ClearlyÏeach€member€of€the€team€functions€as€an€agent€of€the€state€whose€obligationÏit€is€to€investigate€allegations€of€child€sexual€abuse€and€gather€evidence€forÏprosecution.ÌÌà àThe€circumstances€of€this€case€support€a€finding€that€defendant'sÏconfession€was€not€voluntarily€given,€but€was€prompted€by€impliedÏpromises€and€improper€influence.€€When€defendant's€wife€confronted€himÏwith€the€allegations€made€by€his€stepdaughter,€defendant€and€his€wifeÏvoluntarily€sought€the€help€of€Christian€counselors.€€After€those€sessions,Ïdefendant€and€his€wife€decided€to€report€the€allegation€to€the€DepartmentÏof€Human€Services.€€ÌÌà à€From€the€beginning,€defendant€expressed€grave€concern€aboutÏlosing€his€family.€€The€DHS€worker€described€his€as€"distraught"€over€theÏsituation.€€Upon€hearing€that€concern,€the€DHS€worker€advised€defendantÏthat€"the€best€thing€was€to€tell€the€truth€and€to€get€into€counseling€so€in€theÏend€his€family€could€be€reunited."€€Further,€the€DHS€officer€"explained€theÏalternatives;€that€if€there€is€a€problem,€should€admit€it,€and€more€thanÏlikely€the€D.A.€will€not€prosecute€if€[defendant]€gets€treatment."€€CertainlyÏshe€did€not€guarantee€defendant€that€he€would€avoid€prosecution€byÏadmitting€the€offense€and€seeking€treatment.€€She€could€not€immunize€himÏfrom€prosecution€and€she€did€not.€€She€did,€however,€assure€defendant€thatÏhe€would€be€prosecuted€if€he€did€not€seek€treatment.ÌÌà àAs€a€result€of€their€conversations,€the€counselor€referred€defendantÏto€the€Luton€Mental€Health€Center.€€In€continual€cooperation€with€theÍcounselor's€suggestion,€defendant€went€to€the€mental€health€center€and€metÏwith€a€counselor.€€There€he€admitted€that€he€had€committed€the€unlawfulÏsexual€act.€€His€admission€to€the€counselor€was€€made€without€theÏknowledge€that€state€law€abrogated€the€patient„counselor€privilege€forÏcommunication€relates€to€child€sexual€abuse.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„614Ï(1991€€Supp.)ÌÌà àWhile€the€majority's€conclusion€that€this€statement€was€not€aÏcustodial€one€is€obviously€correct,€it€does€not€follow€that€it€is€admissible.€ÏAs€the€majority€notes,€the€test€for€voluntariness€under€Article€I,€Section€9Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution€is€more€protective€of€individual€rights€thanÏthe€test€under€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€InÏorder€to€be€admissible,€the€confession€must€be€"the€product€of€a€free€andÏdeliberate€choice€.€.€.€.€€€Moreover,€the€waiver€must€be€made€with€fullÏawareness€of€both€the€nature€of€the€right€being€abandoned€and€theÏconsequences€of€the€decision€to€abandon€it."€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878ÏS.W.2d€530,€544„45€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€the€final€analysis,€the€issue€isÏwhether€the€admission€of€the€confession€accomplishes€"fundamentalÏfairness"€and€"substantial€justice."€€òòVan€Zandt€v.€Stateóó,€402€S.W.2d€130,Ï135€(Tenn.€1966).€€Ìà àÌà àI€conclude€that€the€admission€of€defendant's€confession€under€theÍcircumstances€of€this€case€offends€the€notion€of€fundamental€fairness€andÏfails€to€accomplish€substantial€justice.€€Clearly,€defendant€trusted€the€DHSÏworker€to€advise€him€as€to€how€he€might€preserve€his€family.€€HeÏconfronted€her€with€that€concern€and€she€undertook€to€advise€him.€€WhileÏshe€did€not€guarantee€that€counseling€would€forestall€prosecution,€she€didÏassure€him€that€if€he€did€not€seek€counseling,€he€would€be€prosecuted.€ÏBased€on€her€advice,€defendant€sought€counselingœ× ƒ, ××  ×›€and,€as€it€was€suggested,Ïadmitted€the€problem.€€Unbeknownst€to€defendant,€his€communications€toÏhis€counselor€were€not€privileged,€but€were€used€to€prosecute€and€convictÏhim.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€state€has€not€met€its€burden,€in€myÏopinion,€of€showing€Ñ7€5XXdìXXdì7Ñœthat›€defendant's€confession€was€the€product€of€aÏvoluntary,€free€will.€ÌÌÓÓœ›à àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àPenny€J.€White,€Justice