Is a police officer's exhortation to "tell the truth" sufficient to induce a subsequent confession?

"The line to be drawn between permissible police conduct and conduct [inducing] an involuntary statement does not depend upon the bare language of inducement but rather upon the nature of the benefit to be derived by a defendant if he speaks the truth, as represented by the police. Thus, 'advice or exhortation by a police officer to an accused to "tell the truth" or that "it would be better to tell the truth" unaccompanied by either a threat or a promise, does not render a subsequent confession involuntary.'" (People v. Hill (1967) 66 Cal.2d 536, 549.) "When the benefit pointed out by the police to a suspect is merely that which flows naturally from a truthful and honest course of conduct, we can perceive nothing improper in such police activity. On the other hand, if . . . the defendant is given to understand that he might reasonably expect benefits in the nature of more lenient treatment at the hands of the police, prosecution or court . . . such motivation is deemed to render the statement involuntary and inadmissible." (Ibid.)

"'In order to introduce a defendant's statement into evidence, the People must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was voluntary.'" (People v. Maury, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 404.) "'On appeal, the trial court's findings as to the circumstances surrounding the confession are upheld if supported by substantial evidence, but the trial court's finding as to the voluntariness of the confession is subject

Page 24