☢ test - Í

record persuades us the interrogating officer’s comments about punishment amounted to no more than an explanation of the seriousness of Preston’s situation, and his requests to Preston to permit him to help were the equivalent of the officer’s urging in Pittman v. State, [277 Ga. 475, 478 (592 S.E.2d 72) (2004)] for the defendant ‘to tell the truth so that [the officer] could “work this,”’ and the officer’s admonishment in State v. Roberts, 273 Ga. 514(3) (543 S.E.2d 725) (2001), for the defendant to be truthful because, ‘We can’t help you like this.’ ‘[A]dmonitions to tell the truth will not invalidate a confession. ’ Id. The trial court’s finding that Preston’s statement was not the result of a hope of benefit given by the interrogating officer was not clearly erroneous and is consequently upheld.” Accord, Valentine v. State , 289 Ga.App. 60, 656 S.E.2d 208 (December 20, 2007); Foster v. State , 283 Ga. 484, 660 S.E.2d 521 (April 14, 2008); Stringer (October 5, 2009), above (“I’m trying to help you,” didn’t convey “hope of benefit”); Madrigal v. State , 287 Ga. 121, 694 S.E.2d 652 (April 19, 2010) ( reversed on other grounds, State v. Kelly , 290 Ga. 29, 718 S.E.2d 232 (November 7, 2011)) (Defendant’s murder conviction affirmed; the “ officer's statement that withholding information would make things worse for Madrigal is, in context, an admonition not to damage his credibility but to tell the truth.”); Lane v. State , 324 Ga.App. 303, 750 S.E.2d 381 (October 23, 2013) (“the investigator's explanation of consecutive versus concurrent sentences and the options available to the district attorney's office merely emphasized the seriousness of the charges.”). Hill v. State, 281 Ga. 795, 642 S.E.2d 64 (February 26, 2007). While “certain comments made by police improperly promised [defendant] that he might receive a lighter sentence if he talked with them [ footnote: In particular we find improper the statement to [defendant] that ‘[y]ou want to be able to see your kids grow, not maybe, possibly be getting out when they turn 23.’ ] ,” trial court did not err in admitting defendant’s statement based on his own testimony that he was not promised anything by the police. “The State bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that a confession was voluntary, see State v. Ray, 272 Ga. 450(2) (531 S.E.2d 705) (2000), and did so in this case with [defendant’s] own testimony.” Smith v. State, 281 Ga.App. 91, 635 S.E.2d 385 (August 14, 2006). “[U]nder OCGA § 24-3-51, ‘[t]he fact that a confession has been made under a spiritual exhortation, a promise of secrecy, or a promise of collateral benefit shall not exclude it.’ … Here, the sheriff who received Smith’s statement testified that he made no promises of leniency to him, but that when Smith told him about his drug addiction, he told Smith that he would inform the court that he needed help. This promise of help with a drug problem did not bear on the question of punishment, and was thus a collateral benefit. See Jones v. State, 266 Ga.App. 717, 720 (598 S.E.2d 366) (2004). The trial court therefore did not err when it admitted Smith’s statement into evidence.” Accord, Sparrow v. State , 324 Ga.App. 163, 748 S.E.2d 518 (October 8, 2013) (burglary conviction affirmed; officer’s promise not to tell defendant’s sister or parole officer about his drug use “does not render Sparrow’s statement involuntary.”). Compare Spence v. State , 281 Ga. 697, 642 S.E.2d 856 (April 10, 2007) (confession inadmissible where officer promised statement would be “confidential”). Pollio v. State, 278 Ga.App. 729, 629 S.E.2d 583 (April 11, 2006). “‘[i]t is not improper for the police to encourage a suspect to help [himself] by telling the truth,’ or share his ‘side of the story.’ Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269, 270, 273(2), 553 S.E.2d 598 (2001). Further, no promises were made to Pollio regarding arrest or sentencing, and, although it did not happen in this case, it ‘does not render a statement involuntary for the police to tell a suspect that the trial judge may consider [his] truthful cooperation with the police.’ Id. supra at 273(2); see Frei v. State , 252 Ga.App. 535, 537(2)(b), 557 S.E.2d 49 (2001). (‘we have held that a confession is not tainted because a suspect confesses only after the officer tells him, “I want to help you,” or after the officer says ... he will inform the prosecutor and “it might help”’) (citation omitted). Thus, any inference Pollio may have unilaterally drawn regarding the benefit of talking to police did not render the interview inadmissible under OCGA § 24-3-50.” Officer here told defendant “that she wanted to ‘hear his side of the story.’” Accord, Davis v. State , 292 Ga.App. 782, 666 S.E.2d 56 (June 26, 2008) (no improper hope of benefit where officer says he is “‘not opposed to’ telling the judge about [defendant’s] cooperation.”); Wilson v. State , 285 Ga. 224, 675 S.E.2d 11 (February 23, 2009) (promise to report cooperation, exhortation to “level with us” and “do the right thing and help yourself out” did not constitute hope of benefit); Cantrell v. State , 299 Ga.App. 746, 683 S.E.2d 676 (August 18, 2009); Samuels v. State , 288 Ga. 48, 701 S.E.2d 172 (October 18, 2010); Rogers v. State , 289 Ga. 675, 715 S.E.2d 68 (September 12, 2011) (statements made after investigator told defendant “you are not trying to help yourself” were not product of impermissible hope of benefit); Nowell v. State , 312 Ga.App. 150, 717 S.E.2d 730 (October 19, 2011) (“the officers' statements that Nowell should ‘man up’ and ‘own up’ to the charges and that his assistance would go a long way in helping him out also do not constitute promises of a lighter sentence.”); Currier v. State , 294 Ga. 392, 754 S.E.2d 17 (January 21, 2014) (exhortation to tell the truth not a hope of benefit). Davenport v. State, 277 Ga.App. 758, 627 S.E.2d 133 (February 6, 2006). Statement can be made involuntary by promise of benefit from non-State actors, but that was not the case here. “In Griffin v. State, 230 Ga.App. 318, 320 (496 S.E.2d