Cited by

However, the Rules of Professional Conduct do not create substantive rights on behalf of third parties.

“The New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct are aimed at policing the conduct of attorneys, not at creating substantive rights on behalf of third parties.” State v. Decker, 138 N.H. 432, 438 (1994).

see State v. Decker, 138 N.H. 432, 438 (1994) (noting that Conduct Rules “are aimed at policing the conduct of attorneys, not at creating substantive rights on behalf of third parties”).

While the defendant requested that the interrogation be conducted outside of his cell because he was cold, the fact that the cell was cold and uncomfortable did not rise to the level of imposing a “threat of physical violence.” In State v. Decker, where the conditions were far more severe, we did not find that the circumstances of the defendant’s incarceration overcame his free will.

The determination of whether a confession is voluntary “is initially a question of fact for the trial court, whose decision will not be overturned unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, as viewed in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Decker, 138 N.H. 432, 436, 641 A.2d 226, 228 (1994).

Whether a confession is voluntary “is initially a question of fact for the trial court, whose decision will not be overturned unless it is *405 contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, as viewed in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Decker, 138 N.H. 432, 436, 641 A.2d 226, 228 (1994).

“[T]o be considered voluntary, a confession must be the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice and not extracted by threats, violence, direct or implied promises of any sort, or by the exertion of any improper influence.” State v. Decker, 138 N.H. 432, 436, 641 A.2d 226, 228 (1994).

Nonetheless, the court, relying upon our decision in State v. Decker, 138 N.H. 432, 641 A.2d 226 (1994), concluded that a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct can be remedied only through the disciplinary process, except when the violation threatens the procedural fairness of a case.

The facts surrounding the defendant’s confinement are discussed in State v. Decker, 138 N.H. 432, 434-35, 641 A.2d 226, 227-28 (1994).

Attorney conduct rules are “self-imposed internal regulations prescribing the standards of conduct for members of the bar.” State v. Decker, 138 N.H. 432, 439, 641 A.2d 226, 230 (1994) (quotation omitted).

Moreover, the decision to forgo the right to counsel must be voluntary.

The rules do not create substantive rights in third parties, but they may be considered in evaluating whether withdrawal should be allowed.