☢ test - Í

consideration if the suspect cooperates.’).” Dunson v. State, 309 Ga.App. 484, 711 S.E.2d 53 (May 5, 2011). Physical precedent only. Convictions for aggravated child molestation and related offenses affirmed; 1. no “hope of benefit” where officers offered to arrange counseling for defendant who revealed that he had been molested as a child. “[T]he offer to obtain counseling for Dunson did not bear on the question of punishment. It involved a collateral benefit, and promises of a collateral benefit do not impact a statement's admissibility. See Smith v. State, 281 Ga.App. 91, 94(3), 635 S.E.2d 385 (2006); OCGA § 24–3–51 (‘The fact that a confession has been made under ... a promise of collateral benefit shall not exclude it.’).” 2. No hope of benefit where “an officer asked [defendant] what sentence the person who assaulted the victim should receive. Dunson replied: ‘I think they need about three years, some counseling, and that's about it.’ According to Dunson, this exchange encouraged his belief regarding the amount of prison time that might result from a conviction. … [T]he ‘hope of benefit’ must be induced by another. See OCGA § 24–3–50; Ramos v. State, 198 Ga.App. 65, 66(1), 400 S.E.2d 353 (1990). A hope that ‘originates in the mind of the person making the confession and which originates from seeds of his own planting [will] not exclude a confession.’ (Punctuation omitted.) Id. Dunson has offered no evidence that the officers induced him to believe he would receive a three year sentence. He came up with that scenario on his own. The trial court, therefore, properly found his statements voluntary and admissible.” Sosniak v. State, 287 Ga. 279, 695 S.E.2d 604 (June 7, 2010). Interim review of death penalty prosecution. 1. No hope of benefit where detective “stated that he was ‘trying to get an idea of how honest’ Sosniak was going to be with them, because he knew that Sosniak's co-defendant was going to be honest. Then he asked Sosniak, ‘Who's going to be honest first?’ Sosniak contends that Detective Cox indicated by his remarks that Sosniak would be rewarded for his cooperation. Our review of the record reveals that the detective's comments amounted to no more than exhortations to Sosniak to be truthful. ‘[A]dmonitions to tell the truth will not invalidate a confession.’ State v. Roberts, 273 Ga. 514, 516(3) (543 S.E.2d 725) (2001), overruled on other grounds by Vergara [ v. State, 283 Ga. 175, 178(1) (657 S.E.2d 863) (2008)].” Accord, Johnson v. State , 295 Ga. 421, 761 S.E.2d 13 (June 30, 2014). 2. “Detective Moore's statement that there would be ‘no further charges’ regarding ‘any drugs or any intent to distribute’ was made in the context of encouraging Sosniak to be truthful regarding his activities leading up to the time of the crimes, even if those activities involved drugs. The detectives never promised or gave hope to Sosniak that he would receive a lighter punishment in exchange for a confession to the crimes with which he was charged.” Accord, Morris v. State , 322 Ga.App. 682, 746 S.E.2d 162 (July 5, 2013). 3. “ Near the beginning of the interview, Detective Cox stated: ‘Right now, you need to be thinking about you and what's ... going to get you out of jail so you can see your kid out in California, not wearing a Georgia Department of Corrections outfit.’ Sosniak maintains that Detective Cox's remark was intended to imply that, if he cooperated with the detectives, he could go free. After reviewing the remark in context, we conclude that it was a small part of the detective's lengthy opening comments made to Sosniak before the actual interview to encourage him to tell the truth,” and “did not constitute a hope of benefit under OCGA § 24-3-50.” Canty v. State, 286 Ga. 608, 690 S.E.2d 609 (March 1, 2010). Reversing 297 Ga.App. 725, 678 S.E.2d 169 (2009), trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress custodial statement. “In this case, it is evident from the record that Canty was told much more than simply that his cooperation would be made known to the prosecution. He was told that confessing to the crime could result in a ‘shorter term.’ That is exactly the hope of benefit which is prohibited under Georgia law.” State v. Klepper, 301 Ga.App. 753, 688 S.E.2d 673 (December 18, 2009). Trial court properly suppressed defendant’s custodial statement; evidence supported finding that “the statement was involuntary because it had been induced by hope of benefit in the form of a lesser punishment.” Defendant was charged with armed robbery. Detective suggested to defendant that his actions – putting his fist under his shirt and pretending he had a gun – was theft by taking and not armed robbery. Defendant wrote a statement admitting to the act, and stating that it was theft by taking. Defendant was nonetheless charged with armed robbery. “[Officer] admitted that he initiated the conversation with Klepper about the lesser offense. … [T]he totality of the circumstances – Klepper’s statement to [Officer] Bennett that [Officer] Orrick had told him that ‘it was theft by taking,’ Orrick's admission that the lesser charge was discussed, and the specific language in Klepper's written statement expressly admitting to the lesser offense – supported the trial court's factual finding.” Stringer v. State, 285 Ga. 842, 684 S.E.2d 590 (October 5, 2009). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed. Officer’s statement to defendant “I’m trying to help you,” did “not constitute the ‘slightest hope of benefit.’”