interview shows that the investigators repeatedly told Appellant he would in fact be charged in several cases but that they would make the process as convenient for him as they could if he would help them recover the stolen property. For example, Investigator Hilli-ard offered to call Appellant once the cases were filed so Appellant could arrange for bond before he was arrested and possibly spend little to no time in jail before bonding out. But Investigator Hil-liard also told Appellant that he did not have the authority to dismiss cases. Given the explicit representations of lack of authority to dismiss charges, we do not believe the investigators’ statements or offers were of such a nature that Appellant might speak untruthfully in response. See Johnson, 68 S.W.3d at 654-55 (<HOLDING>). After viewing the record in the light most
holding defendants confession voluntary where defendant initiated discussion of a deal to avoid death penalty detective told defendant the police could make no guarantees and detective indicated police were without authority to make deals but instead could only relay information to the court and prosecutor holding that a police officers lie to defendant about his cousin confessing to the commission of a murder was insufficient in the supreme courts view to make an otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible holding that the fact that police falsely told defendant that his companion had confessed to the crime under investigation though relevant was insufficient to render otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible holding that an individuals statements were involuntary in a noncustodial setting when a police officer familiar with the defendant told him that he could speak off the cuff and where the police misled the defendant concerning confidentiality holding that an officers promise to bring defendants cooperation to the attention of the prosecutor did not make confession involuntary