rewards for confession, or deprivation of freedom of action;” (4) “[t]he evidence in the record does not show an oppressive environment];]” and (5) “defendant’s intoxication at the time of confession does not preclude a conclusion that a defendant’s statements were freely made],] . . . [and the] record does not show defendant was so heavily under the influence that he could not understand the implications of confessing to sexually assaulting his daughter.” Id. at 115-16, 572 S.E.2d at 168-69 (internal citations omitted). After an examination of the circumstances our Court held the defendant’s statement to law enforcement officers was made voluntarily. Id. at 116, 572 S.E.2d at 169. In this case, the detectives suggestion that Defendant was a suspect in a murder inve 2, 720-21 (1991) (<HOLDING>); State v. Hardy, 339 N.C. 207, 224, 451 S.E.2d
holding that confession was not induced from an improper promise where competent evidence supports the trial courts finding that the interviewing officer made no promises during the interrogation holding that agee applies only where defendant has alleged that his confession was induced by threats or promises holding that when competent substantial evidence supports a trial courts ruling the appellate court will not secondguess the trial court holding that a trial courts finding of a fraudulent lien must be supported by competent evidence holding that when competent substantial evidence supports the trial courts ruling this court will not secondguess the trial court on this matter