the defendant made his confession, and the officer’s statement was one from which defendant could gather some hope of benefit by confessing.” Id. Thereafter, the trial court determined that, based on a totality of the circumstances, the defendant’s confession was made involuntarily. Id. Citing a number of supportive cases, the State argues that “[a] suggestion of hope created by statements of law enforcement officers that they will talk to the District Attorney regarding a suspect’s cooperation where there is no indication that preferential treatment might be given in exchange for cooperation does not render inculpatory statements involuntary.” State v. Houston, 169 N.C. App. 367, 375, 610 S.E.2d 777, 783 (2005); State v. McKinney, 153 N.C. App. 369, 375, 570 S.E.2d 238, 243 (2002) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). While the
holding that agents promise to inform prosecutor of defendants cooperation does not render a subsequent confession involuntary holding that any inducement of hope must promise relief from the criminal charge to which the confession relates holding that the alien was entitled to performance by the government of its promise that the government would not oppose any of his motions for relief from deportation holding that trial judges determination of the admissibility of a confession is based on whether the confession was voluntarily given holding that an officers promise to bring defendants cooperation to the attention of the prosecutor did not make confession involuntary