ÿWPC>2 …# V %a 0{g âwê4ú 0J 0¿X 0D 0T[ 0^¯ 0h 0ru 0|ç c i 0†x 0þ 1uŽ UH 0dK B¯ D3ÌU6ÿB)5 0@^DCž AMáU*.?XF—(ݪ2¯"á;é>ë'â—ôí‹›x ú$; 'v~H)vÓÆ* AO™0Æè0 0D®1 D/ò1 B!2˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 !X(S˜å$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÔ€!XoþXX!XÔ€#Ó€ DÒ ÿÿ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(o(3 $¤¤Ý ƒ˜å!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÔ€!XÞXX!XÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔHV3|x 2T 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)<à09Z 0Courier (W1) RegularP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d%%%%'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌNovemberÏ12,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€cases€involving€sexually€oriented€crimes,€the€CourtÏendeavors€to€withhold€the€identity€of€young€victims€whenÏappropriate.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€record€is€not€clear,€apparently€Luton€MentalÏHealth€Center€is€a€private€facility.Ì  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„614€abrogates€the€privileged€nature€ofÏcommunications€between€any€professional€person€and€his€or€herÏpatient€or€client€where€the€subject€matter€of€those€communicationsÏrelates€to€child€sexual€abuse.Ì (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý384€U.S.€436€(1966).€€The€trial€court€did€not€expressly€stateÏits€reasons€for€the€ruling€on€the€record.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€interpret€this€to€be€seven€years€seventy„three€days;€theÏrecord€is,€however,€unclear.Ì 1Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Fifth€Amendment€applies€to€the€states€via€the€FourteenthÏAmendment.€òòMalloy€v.€Hoganóó,€378€U.S.€1€(1964).Ì ßÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€436.Ì áÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòMurphyóó,€465€U.S.€at€434„39.Ì ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSmith€apparently€relies€on€Walkerððs€alleged€ð ðthreatðð€toÏexcuse€his€obligation€to€invoke€his€right€to€avoid€self„incrimination.€€òòMurphyóó,€465€U.S.€at€434„39.€€As€discussed€òòinfraóó,ÏPart€IV,€we€do€not€agree€with€Smithððs€categorization€of€WalkerððsÏstatements.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWalker€testified€that€she€recommended€that€the€case€not€beÏprosecuted,€but€rather€that€reunification€of€the€family€be€sought.€ÏThe€district€attorney€general€obviously€did€not€concur€in€thisÏrecommendation.Ì ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòRogersóó€was€decided€under€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€dueÏprocess€clause.€€òòRogersóó€predates€òòMalloyóó€in€which€the€Supreme€CourtÏheld€the€Fifth€Amendment€applicable€to€the€states.€€The€standardÏexpressed€is€in€our€view€equally€applicable€to€cases€arising€underÏthe€Fifth€Amendment.Ì ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€both€òòCrespo€de€Llanoóó€and€òòPeltonóó,€the€defendants€relied€onÏòòUnited€States€v.€Tingleóó,€658€F.2d€1332€(9th€Cir.€1981).€€InÏòòTingleóó,€the€young€defendant€had€a€two„year„old€child.€€TheÏarresting€officer€told€Tingle€that€she€was€facing€a€potentialÏsentence€in€excess€of€forty€years€(an€exaggeration)€and€that€ifÏshe€did€not€cooperate,€she€would€not€see€her€child€again€for€aÏvery€long€time.€€We€consider€òòTingleóó€clearly€distinguishable€fromÏthis€case.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€was€not€in€custody,€andÏWalkerððs€statements€were€simply€her€prediction€of€the€futureÏcourse€of€events„„events€that€would€legally€and€predicably€followÏin€light€of€Walkerððs€conversation€with€Smith€and€the€victim.Ì ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€ConstitutionÏprovides€that€no€state€shall€ð ðdeprive€any€person€of€life,€liberty,Ïor€property,€without€due€process€of€law.€.€.€.ððÌÌà à€€Article€I,€ðð€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides:€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àNo€man€to€be€disturbed€but€by€law.€€That€noÏman€shall€be€taken€or€imprisoned,€or€disseizedÏof€his€freehold,€liberties€or€privileges,€orÏoutlawed,€or€exiled,€or€in€any€mannerÏdestroyed€or€deprived€of€his€life,€liberty€orÏproperty,€but€by€the€judgment€of€his€peers€orÏthe€law€of€the€land.Ì 1Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòJaffee€v.€Redmondóó,€___€U.S.€___,€1996€WL€315841,€64ÏU.S.L.W.€4490,€n.12€(June€13,€1996)(ð ðAt›€the€outset€of€theirÏrelationship,€the€ethical€therapist€must€disclose€to€the€patientÏððthe€relevant€limits€on€confidentiality.ðððð€œ€American›€PsychologyÏAssociation,€Ethical€Principles€of€Psychologists€a€Code€ofÏConduct,€Standard€5.01€(Dec.€œ1992)).›ÌPtPt HHð@ÿìÿîRd(ühh° @d'ÿœÿ¦ šStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€+ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÞXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °‚X˜XÓÓ  ÓÔ% € ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà à)à àFor€PublicationÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à àFiled:€€November€12,€1996Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà à)ÌNATHAN€SMITHà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Seth€Norman,€JudgeÌÙ€€ÙßL€/1.;+'h|“ä` ‚- `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)à àNo.€01„S„01„9509„CR„00151ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓòòÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:òòà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:òòÌÌóóCHARLES€W.B.€FELSà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌKENNETH€F.€IRVINE,€JR.à àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌKnoxville,€TNÌ(On€appeal)à àà àà àà àMICHAEL€MOOREÌà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌEDWARD€L.€HILANDà àà àà àMICHAEL€W.€CATALANOÌNashville,€TNà àà àà àà àAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌà àÌCHARLES€I.€POOLEà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIÌSevierville,€TNà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ(At€trial)à àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àRENEE€ERBÌà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÌÌÌÌÌòòÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBIRCH,€C.J.ÇÓ  ÓÓÓà àNathan€Smith,€the€defendant,€appeals€the€judgment€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirming€his€two€convictions€forÏaggravated€sexual€battery.€€In€this€appeal,€Smith€contends€thatÏthe€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€incriminating€statements€heÏmade€to€a€mental€health€counselor.€€He€insists€that€theseÏstatements€should€have€been€suppressed€because:€€(1)€they€wereÏelicited€Ô% € Ôin€violation€of€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436€(1966);Ï(2)€they€constituted€an€involuntary€confession;€and€(3)€they€wereÏsolicited€under€circumstances€that€violated€his€due€process€rightsÏunder€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€ConstitutionÏand€Article€I,€ðð€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Under€the€factsÏof€this€case,€we€find€that€the€admission€of€these€statements€didÏnot€violate€the€defendantððs€state€or€federal€constitutionalÏrights;€accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment.ÌÌà@ àIÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€one€morning€the€defendant,€cladÏonly€in€his€bathrobe,€entered€the€bedroom€of€his€stepdaughter,€AJ.× ƒ2 ××  ×€ÍHe€sat€on€the€edge€of€her€bed€and€placed€her€hand€on€his€penis.€ÏHe€removed€her€hand€momentarily€and€then€placed€it€there€again.€€Ìà àÌà àA€few€days€later,€AJððs€mother€(the€defendantððs€wife)Ïlearned€of€the€incident.€€She€immediately€confronted€Smith€aboutÏAJððs€allegations.€€Smith€and€his€wife€then€voluntarily€reportedÏthe€allegations€to€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Human€ServicesÏ(DHS).€€ÌÌà àOn€the€day€the€matter€was€reported,€DHS€social€workerÏTracy€Walker€interviewed€the€victim,€her€mother,€and€theÏdefendant.€€Walker€told€the€defendant€that,€from€her€experienceÏwith€the€district€attorney€generalððs€office,€if€a€perpetratorÏadmitted€the€allegations€and€received€treatment,€he€probably€wouldÏnot€be€indicted.€€She€also€told€the€defendant€that€she€could€notÏpromise€that€he€would€not€be€prosecuted.€€Walker€also€told€theÏdefendant€that€he€would€be€indicted€if€he€did€not€seek€counseling.€ÏWalker€referred€the€defendant€to€Luton€Mental€Health€Center.× ƒ3 ××  ×ÌÌà àA€few€days€later,€the€defendant€met€with€Walker€and€JeffÏWest,€a€detective€attached€to€the€Youth€Services€Division€of€theÏMetropolitan€Nashville„Davidson€County€Police€Department.€€WestÏinterviewed€the€defendant€at€the€station;€the€interview€was€tape„recorded.€€The€defendant€presented€himself€for€this€interviewÏvoluntarily€and€was€permitted€to€leave€at€its€conclusion.€€ÌÌà àSix€weeks€later,€the€defendant€sought€counseling€atÏLuton€Mental€Health€Center.€€During€a€session€with€a€counselor,€heÏadmitted€that€the€unlawful€sexual€contact€had€occurred€and€that€heÏhad€found€it€sexually€stimulating.€€ÌÌà àNeither€Walker,€West,€nor€the€counselor€ever€advised€theÏdefendant€that€he€had€the€right€to€remain€silent€and€that€hisÏstatements€could€be€used€against€him.€€Additionally,€the€counselorÏfailed€to€advise€him€that€his€statements€to€her€were€notÏstatutorily€confidential.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àAt€a€pre„trial€hearing,€the€trial€court€suppressed€theÏstatements€the€defendant€made€to€Walker€and€West,€presumably€basedÏon€their€respective€failure€to€advise€him€of€his€rights€pursuantÏto€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€After€a€jury„out€hearing€at€trial,€theÏcounselor€was€permitted€to€testify€about€the€defendantððsÏincriminating€statements€to€her.€€The€trial€court€admitted€thisÏtestimony€reluctantly,€noting:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àWeððve€got€a€D.H.S.€agent,€orÏrepresentative,€going€to€this€manÏand€saying,€ð ðlook,€if€youððll€go€getÏhelp,€we€might€not€prosecute€you€onÏthis€matter.ðð€€The€man€goes€and€getsÏhelp,€and€then€you€bring€thatÏwitness€in€to€buttress€your€case.€ÏIn€other€words,€you€mousetrappedÏhim,€didnððt€you?ÌÓÓÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€jury€found€theÏdefendant€guilty€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€HeÏwas€sentenced€as€a€mitigated€offender€to€concurrent€7.2€yearÏsentences.× ƒ6 ××  ×ÌÌÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution× ƒ7 ××  ×Ïprovides€that€ð ð[n]o€person€.€.€.€shall€be€compelled€in€anyÏcriminal€case€to€be€a€witness€against€himself€.€.€.€.ðð€€Article€I,Ïðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€that€ð ðin€all€criminalÏprosecutions,€the€accused€.€.€.€shall€not€be€compelled€to€giveÏevidence€against€himself.ðð€ÌÌà àAs€a€general€rule,€a€person€must€affirmatively€invokeÏthese€protections.€€òòMinnesota€v.€Murphyóó,€465€U.S.€420,€429€(1984);ÏòòMcCormick€on€Evidenceóó€ðð125€(John€William€Strong€ed.,€4th€ed.Ï1992).€€There€are€three€exceptions€to€this€requirement;€two€areÏpertinent€here:€(1)€an€individual€is€not€required€to€invoke€theÏright€to€avoid€self„incrimination€during€a€custodial€interrogationÏby€a€government€agent× ƒ8 ××  ×€and€(2)€an€individual€is€not€required€toÍinvoke€the€right€to€avoid€self„incrimination€if€the€government€hasÏthreatened€a€penalty€if€the€privilege€is€asserted.× ƒ9 ××  ×€ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€defendant,€the€counselor€was€requiredÏto€advise€him€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€prior€to€their€discussion,€andÏhe€was€excused€from€asserting€his€right€to€avoid€self„incrimination.€€Ìà àDuring€a€custodial€interrogation,€state€agents€mustÏaffirmatively€advise€an€individual€of€his€right€to€remain€silentÏand€of€the€consequences€of€his€failure€to€assert€that€right.€ÏòòMirandaóó,€384€U.S.€at€467„69.€€To€constitute€a€ð ðcustodialÏinterrogation,ðð€(1)€the€subject€must€be€ð ðin€custodyðð;€(2)€thereÏmust€be€an€interrogation;€and€(3)€the€interrogation€must€beÏconducted€by€a€state€agent.€€òòId.óó€at€444.ÌÌà àAn€accused€is€ð ðin€custodyðð€if€ð ðdeprived€of€his€freedomÏof€action€in€any€significant€way.ðð€€òòOregon€v.€Mathiasonóó,€429€U.S.Ï492,€494„96€(1977);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€570€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€The€determinative€inquiry€is€whether€ð ðthere€is€a€ððformalÏarrest€or€restraint€of€freedom€of€movementðð€of€the€degreeÍassociated€with€a€formal€arrest.ðð€€òòCalifornia€v.€Beheleróó,€463€U.S.Ï1121,€1125€(1983)(òòquotingóó€òòMathiasonóó,€429€U.S.€at€495);€òòSmithóó,€868ÏS.W.2d€at€570.€€The€circumstances€of€each€case€will€influence€aÏdetermination€of€whether€a€suspect€is€ð ðin€custodyðð€and€thusÏentitled€to€òòMirandaóó€protection.€€òòBeheleróó,€463€U.S.€at€1125;€òòseeÏgenerallyóó€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,€912€S.W.2d€756€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€ÏWe€think€the€circumstances€in€this€case€clearly€indicate€that€thisÏdefendant€was€not€in€custody€at€the€time€the€incriminatingÏstatements€were€made.€€Although€Walker€referred€Smith€to€LutonÏMental€Health€Center,€she€had€no€further€participation€in€theÏdefendantððs€decision€to€visit€the€center€for€counseling€almost€sixÏweeks€after€the€referral.€€Smith€was€free€to€leave€at€any€timeÏand,€in€fact,€did€so€after€each€counseling€session.€€There€is€noÏindication€whatsoever€that€his€freedom€of€movement€was€restrained.€ÏAccordingly,€Smith€was€not€ð ðin€custody,ðð€for€òòMirandaóó€purposes,€atÏthe€time€he€made€his€incriminating€statements€to€the€counselor.ÌÌà àBecause€the€defendant€was€not€in€custody,€there€is€noÏneed€for€us€to€determine€whether€the€counselor€was€a€state€agentÏor€whether€her€discussions€with€the€defendant€amounted€toÏinterrogation.€€Smith€was€not€in€custody;€therefore,€the€absenceÍof€òòMirandaóó€warnings€did€not€violate€his€constitutional€right€toÏavoid€self„incrimination.ÌÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€Walker,€as€an€agent€of€theÏstate,€compelled€him€to€make€the€incriminating€statements€to€theÏcounselor,€thereby€producing€an€involuntary€confession.× ƒ: ××  ×€€ÌÌà àBecause€we€find€that€there€was€no€compulsion,€we€needÏnot€consider€the€concomitant€issue€of€whether€Walker,€as€a€DHSÏsocial€worker,€acted€as€a€state€agent€when€she€referred€theÏdefendant€to€Luton€Mental€Health€Center.€€Nevertheless,€it€isÏhelpful€to€describe€the€mandated€interaction€of€the€variousÏgovernmental€entities€that€respond€to€reports€of€child€sexualÏabuse.€€In€these€cases,€DHS€personnel,€although€not€officiallyÏmembers€of€law€enforcement,€function€to€some€degree€in€thatÍcapacity.€€When€a€report€of€child€sexual€abuse€is€received,€theÏð ðchild€protective€teamðð€is€convened€for€the€county€in€which€theÏchild€resides€or€where€the€abuse€alleged€occurred.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€37„1„607.€€The€teams€are€composed€of€representatives€fromÏDHS€and€the€district€attorney€generalððs€office,€a€juvenile€courtÏofficer€or€investigator,€and€a€law€enforcement€officer.€€òòId.óó€ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€37„1„607(a)(3)€provides€ð ðthat€the€childÏprotective€investigations€be€conducted€by€the€team€members€in€aÏmanner€which€not€only€protects€the€child€òòbut€which€also€preservesÏany€evidence€for€future€criminal€prosecutionsóóðð€(emphasis€added).€ÏDHS€must€orally€notify€the€child€protective€team,€the€districtÏattorney€general,€and€the€appropriate€law€enforcement€agency,Ïimmediately€upon€learning€of€any€alleged€child€sexual€abuse.€€DHSÏand€the€team€are€then€required€to€make€a€full€written€report€toÏthe€district€attorney€general€within€three€days€of€the€oralÏreport.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð37„1„607(b)(3).€€The€team€may€recommendÏa€particular€disposition€of€the€case€to€the€district€attorneyÏgeneral,€but€the€final€decision€rests€with€the€district€attorneyÍgeneral.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„607(b)(5).× ƒ; ××  ×€ÌÌà àWe€now€determine€whether€Walkerððs€ð ðadviceðð€to€theÏdefendant€ð ðcompelledðð€his€statement€to€the€counselor.€€Smith€Ïcontends€that€his€statement€was€ð ðcompelledðð€for€two€reasons.€ÏFirst,€he€argues€that€Walker€promised€him€leniency€if€he€did€notÏexercise€his€right€to€avoid€self„incrimination.€€Second,€he€arguesÏthat€Walker€threatened€him€with€prosecution€if€he€did€exercise€hisÏright€to€avoid€self„incrimination.€€ÌÌà àIn€a€jury„out€hearing,€prior€to€the€counselorððsÏtestimony€at€trial,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€statements€toÏthe€counselor€were€voluntary.€€This€determination€is€conclusiveÏunless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€thatÏfinding.€€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€728€(Tenn.€1980);€òòStateÏv.€Chandleróó,€547€S.W.2d€918,€922„23€(Tenn.€1977).ÌÌà àThe€test€of€voluntariness€for€confessions€under€ArticleÏI,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€is€broader€and€moreÏprotective€of€individual€rights€than€the€test€of€voluntarinessÏunder€the€Fifth€Amendment.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,Ï544€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€834€S.W.2d€915,€918„19€(Tenn.Ï1992).Ì€€€Ìà àIn€òòBram€v.€United€Statesóó,€168€U.S.€532€(1897),€theÏSupreme€Court€held€that€in€order€for€a€confession€to€beÏadmissible,€it€must€be€ð ðfree€and€voluntary;€that€is,€must€not€beÏextracted€by€any€sort€of€threats€or€violence,€nor€obtained€by€anyÏdirect€or€implied€promises,€however€slight,€nor€by€the€exertion€ofÏany€improper€influence€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€542„43.€€Since€òòBramóó,Ïcourts€have€struggled€to€articulate€a€test€of€voluntarinessÏcapable€of€accommodating€the€infinite€variety€of€circumstances€inÏwhich€an€accused€individual€is€questioned€and€may€ultimatelyÏconfess.€€Justice€Stewart€noted€that€the€effort€has€yielded€ð ðnoÏtalismanic€definition€of€ððvoluntarinessðð.€.€.€.ðð€€òòSchneckloth€v.ÏBustamonteóó,€412€U.S.€218,€224€(1973).€€Justice€FrankfurterÏdescribed€the€notion€of€ð ðvoluntarinessðð€as€ð ðan€amphibian.ðð€ÏòòCulombe€v.€Connecticutóó,€367€U.S.€568,€604„05€(1961).€€ÌÌà àIn€òòRogers€v.€Richmondóó,€the€Supreme€Court€set€out€theÏstandard€for€determining€the€admissibility€of€a€confession€underÏthe€Fourteenth€Amendment:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àconvictions€following€the€admissionÏinto€evidence€of€confessions€whichÏare€involuntary,€i.e.,€the€productÏof€coercion,€either€physical€orÏpsychological,€cannot€stand.€€ThisÏis€so€not€because€such€confessionsÏare€unlikely€to€be€true€but€becauseÏthe€methods€used€to€extract€themÏoffend€an€underlying€principle€inÏthe€enforcement€of€our€criminal€law:Ïthat€ours€is€an€accusatorial€and€notÏan€inquisitorial€system„„a€system€inÏwhich€the€State€must€establish€guiltÏby€evidence€independently€and€freelyÏsecured€and€may€not€by€coercionÏprove€its€charge€against€an€accusedÏout€of€his€own€mouth.ÌÓÓÌòòRogers€v.€Richmondóó,€365€U.S.€534,€540„41€(1961).× ƒ< ××  ×€€ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€the€particular€circumstances€of€each€caseÏmust€be€examined€as€a€whole.€€òòMonts€v.€Stateóó,€218€Tenn.€31,€400ÍS.W.2d€722,€733€(1966).€€A€defendantððs€subjective€perception€aloneÏis€not€sufficient€to€justify€a€conclusion€of€involuntariness€inÏthe€constitutional€sense.€€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€79Ï(Tenn.€1994)(òòcitingóó€òòColorado€v.€Connellyóó,€479€U.S.€157,€164Ï(1986)).€€Rather,€ð ðcoercive€police€activity€is€a€necessaryÏpredicate€to€finding€that€a€confession€is€not€voluntary€.€.€.€.ðð€ÏòòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Branamóó,€855€S.W.2d€563,€568€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àPromises€of€leniency€by€state€officers€do€not€renderÏsubsequent€confessions€involuntary€òòper€seóó:€€ð ðððThe€Fifth€AmendmentÏdoes€not€condemn€all€promise„induced€admissions€and€confessions;Ïit€condemns€only€those€which€are€òòcompelledóó€by€promises€ofÏleniency.ðððð€òòKellyóó,€603€S.W.2dòò€óóatòò€óó729€(òòquotingóó€òòHunter€v.€Swensonóó,Ï372€F.€Supp.€287,€300„01€(D.C.€Mo.€1974)(emphasis€added)).€€TheÏcritical€question€is€ð ðððwhether€the€behavior€of€the€stateððs€lawÏenforcement€officials€was€such€as€to€overbear€petitionerððs€will€toÏresist€and€bring€about€confessions€not€freely€self„determined€.€.Ï.€.ðððð€òòId.óó€at€728€(quoting€òòRogersóó,€365€U.S.€at€544).€€ÌÌà àAt€the€suppression€hearing€in€this€case,€WalkerÏtestified:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àWhat€was€explained€to€Mr.€Smith€wasÏthat,€he€could€not€be€promised€noÏprosecution,€but€the€best€thing€wasÏto€tell€the€truth€and€to€get€intoÏcounseling,€so€in€the€end€his€familyÏcould€be€reunited.€€.€.€.€IÏexplained€that€my€experience€withÏ[the]€District€Attorneyððs€Office€isÏthat,€in€cases€where€a€person€has€aÏproblem,€if€they€go€into€counselingÏthe€District€Attorney€may€notÏprosecute,€but€I€could€not€promiseÏthat.€€.€.€.€I€explained€theÏalternatives;€that€if€there€is€aÏproblem,€[he]€should€admit€it,€andÏmore€than€likely€the€D.A.€will€notÏprosecute€if€Mr.€Smith€gets€intoÏtreatment.€€I€cautioned€him€that€IÏcannot€promise€no€prosecution,€thatÏmy€experience€is€that€the€D.A.Ïhandled€such€cases€in€this€manner.ÌÓÓÌIn€later€testimony,€Walker€admitted€that€in€this€same€conversationÏshe€told€Smith€that€if€he€did€not€admit€the€abuse,€he€wouldÏdefinitely€be€prosecuted.ÌÌà àAfter€a€painstaking€review€of€the€record€relating€toÏthis€issue,€we€conclude€that€Smith€could€not€have€reasonablyÏinterpreted€Walkerððs€statements€as€a€promise€that€he€would€not€beÏprosecuted€if€he€were€to€admit€the€abuse€and€seek€counseling.€ÏWalkerððs€statements€were€obviously€equivocal,€and€she€made€itÍclear€to€Smith€that€she€could€not€promise€freedom€fromÏprosecution.€€ÌÌà àWalkerððs€statement€that€Smith€would€be€prosecuted€shouldÏhe€choose€not€to€admit€his€unlawful€conduct€also€fails,€in€ourÏview,€to€render€his€subsequent€statements€to€the€counselorÏinvoluntary.€€To€render€a€subsequent€statement€involuntary,€theÏtactics€of€the€state€actor€must€be€so€coercive€as€to€overbear€theÏdefendantððs€will.€€òòKellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€at€728.€€Advice€to€anÏindividual€concerning€the€consequences€of€a€refusal€to€cooperateÏis€not€objectionable.€€We€view€this€statement€as€analogous€toÏthose€made€by€law€enforcement€officers€in€òòUnited€States€v.€CrespoÏde€Llanoóó,€838€F.2d€1006,€1015€(9th€Cir.€1987)€and€òòUnited€States€v.ÏPeltonóó,€835€F.2d€1067,€1072„73€(4th€Cir.€1987).€€In€òòCrespo€deÏLlanoóó,€police€officers,€after€having€procured€a€search€warrant,Ïasked€the€defendant€to€reveal€the€location€of€the€cocaine€so€ð ðthatÏthey€would€not€have€to€tear€the€house€apart.ðð€€òòCrespo€de€Llanoóó,Ï838€F.2d€at€1015.€€In€òòPeltonóó,€FBI€officers€advised€the€defendantÏthat€there€would€be€a€ð ðfull€scale€investigationðð€should€he€decideÏnot€to€cooperate.€€òòPeltonóó,€835€F.2d€at€1072.€€We€agree€with€theÏFourth€Circuit€that€ð ð[t]ruthful€statements€about€[a€defendantððs]Ípredicament€are€not€the€type€of€ððcoercionðð€that€threatens€toÏrender€a€statement€involuntary.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1073.× ƒ= ××  ×ÌÌà àFinally,€we€note€the€six€weeks€interim€between€SmithððsÏconversation€with€Walker€and€the€counseling€session.€€This€delayÏfurther€belies€Smithððs€contention€that€Walker€compelled€hisÏstatements€to€the€counselor.€€€ÌÌà àConsidering€all€of€the€circumstances,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€statements€made€by€the€defendant€were€not€ð ðcompelledðð€inÏviolation€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€or€Article€I,€ðð€9.ÌÌÓ  ÓIVÌÓ  ÓÌà àAs€his€final€point,€Smith€argues€that€the€admission€intoÏevidence€of€his€statements€to€the€counselor€violated€his€dueÏprocess€rights€under€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.× ƒ> ××  ×€€ÏUnder€our€holding€in€òòVan€Zandt€v.€Stateóó,€218€Tenn.€187,€402€S.W.2dÏ130,€135€(1966),€the€ð ðtrue€test€.€.€.€is€whether€ððfundamentalÏfairnessðð€and€ððsubstantial€justiceðð€.€.€.€are€absent€or€present.ðð€€Ìà àAt€the€outset,€we€reject€any€argument€by€the€defendantÏthat€the€legislatureððs€abrogation€of€the€counselor€privilege€inÏchild€sexual€abuse€cases€contravenes€the€principles€of€due€processÏunder€either€the€federal€or€state€constitutions.€€ConfidentialityÏprivileges€exist€solely€at€the€discretion€of€the€legislature€orÏthe€courts.€€Thomas€R.€Malia,€Annotation,€òòValidity,€Construction,Ïand€Application€of€Statute€Limiting€Physician„Patient€Privilege€inÍJudicial€Proceedings€Relating€to€Child€Abuse€or€Neglectòòóó,óó€44ÏA.L.R.4th€649€(1986).€€In€Tennessee€common€law,€there€was€noÏphysician„patient€privilege€or€psychotherapist„patient€privilege.€ÏòòQuarles€v.€Sutherlandóó,€215€Tenn.€651,€389€S.W.2d€249€(1965).€ÏWhile€the€legislature€has€seen€fit€to€provide€such€privileges€forÏcertain€confidential€relationships,€it€has€expressly€abrogated€theÏprivilege€in€judicial€proceedings€relating€to€child€sexual€abuse.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„614.€€As€this€privilege€was€created€byÏstatute,€it€is€without€a€doubt€subject€to€limitation€or€removal€asÏthe€legislature€may€see€fit.€€The€legislature€has€determined€thatÏsocietyððs€interest€in€exposing€the€sexual€abuse€of€childrenÏtranscends€an€accusedððs€interest€in€the€confidentiality€of€his€orÏher€communications€regarding€such€abuse.€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Lyonóó,€648ÏS.W.2d€957,€960€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòAdams€v.€Stateóó,€563ÏS.W.2d€804,€809€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)(both€holding€that€the€needÏto€protect€children€outweighs€the€policy€of€protecting€theÏmarriage€relationship€and€abrogating€the€marital€privilege).€TheÏlegislature€has€duly€exercised€its€prerogative€to€subordinate€theÏinterest€in€preserving€confidential€communications€to€the€interestÏin€identifying€and€prosecuting€child€abusers;€therefore,€theÍdefendant€suffered€no€denial€of€due€process€by€the€mereÏapplication€of€the€statutes€to€his€circumstances.ÌÌà àAccording€to€Smith,€the€strategy€employed€by€WalkerÏviolated€his€due€process€rights,€i.e.,€in€a€deliberate€attempt€toÏelicit€the€incriminating€statements,€Walker€strongly€encouragedÏSmith€to€seek€counseling€knowing€that€any€statements€he€made€toÏthe€counselor€could€be€used€in€a€subsequent€prosecution.ÌÌà àWe€emphasize€that€the€counselor€had€an€ethicalÏobligation€to€advise€Smith€as€to€the€limits€of€confidentiality€inÏmatters€relating€to€child€sexual€abuse.× ƒ? ××  ×€€Failure€to€do€so,Ïhowever,€does€not€necessarily€require€suppression€of€theÏdefendantððs€statements,€particularly€where€the€statements€wereÏmade€in€a€non„custodial€setting€to€a€counselor€not€directlyÏconnected€to€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Mosheróó,€755€S.W.2d€464€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1988).€€Further,€there€is€no€evidence€that€WalkerÍcommunicated€with€the€counselor€or€in€any€way€interfered€toÏprevent€the€counselor€from€informing€Smith€that€his€statements€toÏher€were€not€confidential.€€Absent€evidence€of€interference€by€aÏstate€agent,€we€find€no€violation€of€due€process€in€this€case.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓVÌÓ  ÓÌà àTo€summarize,€we€conclude€that€the€statements€by€theÏdefendant€to€the€counselor€were€not€made€in€a€custodial„interrogation€setting€that€would€warrant€a€òòMirandaóó€advisement.€ÏFurther,€the€incriminating€statements€were€not€compelled€byÏimpermissible€threats€or€promises€of€leniency€so€as€to€render€themÏinvoluntary.€€Moreover,€the€legislature€has€abrogated€theÏcounselor„patient€privilege€in€cases€of€child€sexual€abuse.€ÏBecause€there€is€no€evidence€that€Walker€participated€in€theÏcounselorððs€decision€not€to€advise€Smith€of€the€absence€ofÏprivilege,€we€find€no€due€process€violation.€€ÌÌà àClearly,€society€has€an€interest€in€both€the€successfulÏtreatment€of€child€sex€abuse€perpetrators€and€the€successfulÏprosecution€of€these€individuals.€€Thus,€there€exists€a€necessaryÍtension€between€the€two€interests.€€While€we€harbor€no€desire€toÏupset€the€delicate€balance€between€these€two€interests,€we€areÏconcerned€that€in€their€attempts€to€serve€both,€state€agents€mayÏunwittingly€create€a€situation€in€which€neither€is€accomplished.ÌÌà àWe€do€express€the€strongest€disapproval€of€any€practiceÏwhereby€state€agents€encourage€suspects€to€seek€counseling€for€theÏpurpose€of€eliciting€incriminating€statements€for€use€in€aÏsubsequent€prosecution.€€Walkerððs€statements€to€Smith€were€on€theÏline,€but€did€not€cross€it.€€ÌÌÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€the€judgment€of€the€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals€is€affirmed.ÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà à€€€€____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€ADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€Chief€JusticeÌÌÌCONCUR:€Drowota,€Anderson,€JJ.ÌDISSENTING€IN€SEPARATE€OPINIONS:€€Reid,€White,€JJ.