What is the test for admitting a defendant's involuntary statement at trial?

Both the state and federal Constitutions bar the admission of a defendant's involuntary statement at trial. (People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 551.) "'"A statement is involuntary if it is not the product of '"a rational intellect and free will."' [Citation.] The test for determining whether a confession is voluntary is whether the defendant's 'will was overborne at the time he confessed.'"' [Citation.] In assessing whether statements were the product of free will or coercion, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including '"'the crucial element of police coercion,'"' the length, location, and continuity of the interrogation, and the defendant's maturity, education, and physical and mental health. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 555-556.) "In assessing allegedly coercive police tactics, '[t]he courts have prohibited only those psychological ploys

Page 13

which, under all the circumstances, are so coercive that they tend to produce a statement that is both involuntary and unreliable.' [Citation.]" (People v. Smith, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 501.)

As with Miranda issues, we review issues of voluntariness by accepting the trial court's resolution of disputed facts and inferences and independently determining from the undisputed facts and facts properly found by the trial court whether the challenged statement was illegally obtained. (People v. Duff, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 551.)