Motion to suppress confession; “Freely & voluntarily made”

Concluding that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to suppress and he was not entitled to a new trial, the court affirmed. He was convicted of felony murder, felony-firearm, first-degree arson, and unlawful imprisonment. Defendant claimed that he was “entitled to a new trial because the trial court should have suppressed his involuntary confession made to police.” The court found that the record belied his “claim that his confession was involuntary. During the Walker hearing, one of the detectives who interviewed defendant testified defendant was read his Miranda rights and signed a document confirming that he understood these rights. Defendant stated that he had his GED, was able to read and write, and denied being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, claiming that he had been sober for two months. The detective, who was trained to recognize signs of intoxication, did not observe any noticeable signs of intoxication or drug use, nor any signs of cognitive impairments, disabilities, or withdrawal. The detective also believed defendant provided thoughtful and logical responses to questions, was coherent, and did not appear confused. Under the totality of the circumstances, it was not clearly erroneous for the trial court to find that defendant’s confession was freely and voluntarily made.” Defendant claimed “that, despite his denial of being under the influence, the detectives had reason to know he was. But the detective denied any such knowledge, and we defer to the trial court’s determination regarding the credibility of his testimony.”