Following his arrest for murder, 18-year-old Terrell made incriminating statements during a police interview. Police continued to question Terrell after he invoked his right to remain silent. At the conclusion of the interview, he asked to call his mother. He told his mother that he had killed someone accidentally during a robbery. The trial court suppressed the statements to police as coerced, but admitted the phone call because it was not coerced. The appellate court affirmed. Terrell’s telephonic statements were admissible even if his confession under police interrogation was not. Terrell initiated the phone call and made the statements of his own free will. He was not motivated by any desire for leniency from the police, but merely seeking emotional support from his family. Police did not suggest the call or attempt to influence it. The confession was not tainted because the police did not obtain it by any deliberate exploitation of the first confession.