Emotional appeals by police to an accused regarding victims' families, and urging the accused to tell the truth, do not constitute improper inducements rendering a confession involuntary where there is no suggested benefit to the accused and the accused retains the ability to exercise free choice. The fairness and public policy discretions to exclude confessional statements are distinct and should be exercised independently, though the dissent's view that failure to do so is appellable error did not command majority support. Sleep deprivation not caused by police, while relevant, does not of itself render admission of a confession unfair.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.