Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Arizona v. Fulminante

Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureConfessionsVoluntarinessHarmless Errorcoerced confessioninvoluntary confessiontotality of the circumstancescredible threat of violence

Facts

While incarcerated in a federal prison, Fulminante befriended Anthony Sarivola, another inmate who was acting as an FBI informant and posing as an organized crime figure. After hearing rumors that Fulminante had killed a child and that other inmates were giving him rough treatment, Sarivola told Fulminante he would protect him from other inmates if Fulminante told him about the killing. Fulminante then confessed that he had taken his stepdaughter to the desert, choked and sexually assaulted her, and shot her twice in the head. The confession was admitted at trial along with a later confession to Donna Sarivola, and Fulminante was convicted.

Issue

Whether Fulminante's confession to Sarivola was coerced under the Due Process Clause, and if so, whether its admission at trial could be treated as harmless error. If harmless-error review applied, the further question was whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that admission of the confession did not contribute to the conviction.

Rule

Voluntariness of a confession is determined under the totality of the circumstances, and a confession is coerced when a credible threat of physical violence by or through a government agent overbears the defendant's will; actual violence is not required. The admission of a coerced confession is subject to Chapman harmless-error review, and the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession did not contribute to the conviction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

While jailed in Cleveland awaiting trial, Devon Price is widely rumored among inmates to have molested a child. Owen Marks, another inmate who is secretly working with county detectives, tells Devon that several prisoners are "looking to break" him and that Owen can keep them away only if Devon tells him what really happened. Devon then admits killing the child.

If Devon moves to suppress the statement on due process grounds, how should a court most likely rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is the totality-of-the-circumstances test. A confession is coerced when a credible threat of physical violence by or through a government agent overbears the defendant's will; actual violence is unnecessary. Here, Owen was acting for law enforcement, invoked a credible danger from other inmates, and conditioned protection on a confession. That is sufficient to render the statement involuntary.