We will reverse only if the trial court's decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Newnam, 409 N.W.2d at 84; Discoe, supra at 468; State v. Carlson, 318 N.W.2d 308 (N.D.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1040, 103 S.Ct. 456, 74 L.Ed.2d 609 (1982); State v. Roquette, 290 N.W.2d 260 (N.D. 1980); State v. Thompson, 256 N.W.2d 706 (N.D. 1977). A confession is voluntary if it is the product of the defendant's free choice, rather than the product of coercion.

' We consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether or not a waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Klevgaard, 306 N.W.2d at 195. The standard of review which we employ when considering the totality of the circumstances is `whether or not a determination of voluntariness is manifestly against the weight of the evidence . . .' State v. Roquette, 290 N.W.2d 260, 264 (N.D. 1980)." State v. Carlson, 318 N.W.2d 308, 311 (N.D. 1982).

Whether or not a confession is voluntary must be determined under the totality of the circumstances. State v. Roquette, 290 N.W.2d 260 (N.D. 1980). There is no talismanic definition of "voluntariness" applicable to the different situations where the question has arisen.

State v. Jensen, supra. "In determining whether a jury instruction is misleading, the instruction as a whole must be considered." State v. Roquette, 290 N.W.2d 260, 265 (N.D. 1980), quoting State v. Erickson, 241 N.W.2d 854, 861 (N.D. 1976). The basic principles of law have not changed since the first intoxication statute was enacted in 1877.

That is not the case here. See, e.g., State v. Roquette, 290 N.W.2d 260 (N.D.1980); State v. Shaffer, 96 Wis.2d 531, 292 N.W.2d 370 (Wis.App.1980). 42. Mills v. Com., 996 S.W.2d 473, 483 (Ky.1999), overruled on other grounds,Padgett v. Com., 312 S.W.3d 336 (Ky.2010).

Whether or not Walden's statement was voluntary is contingent upon two factors: first, whether or not the defendant voluntarily waived his right to remain silent; and, second, whether or not the defendant's statement was voluntarily made. State v. Roquette, 290 N.W.2d 260, 264 (N.D. 1980). The standard of review to be utilized when resolving a question of voluntariness is whether or not, considering the totality of the circumstances, the trial court's determination that Walden's statement was voluntary is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

And the way in which the trial court is to make its determination on the issue of voluntariness is by examining the totality of the circumstances which surround the giving of a confession or consent to a search to see whether it is the product of an essentially free choice or the product of coercion. Schneckloth, supra; State v. Carlson, 318 N.W.2d 308 (N.D. 1982), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 456, 74 L.Ed.2d 609 (1982); State v. Roquette, 290 N.W.2d 260 (N.D. 1980); Lange, supra. Under a "totality of the circumstances" standard, although the existence or absence of certain factors concerning (1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time he confessed or consented and (2) the details of the setting in which the consent or confession was obtained are significant in deciding voluntariness, no one factor in and of itself is determinative. Schneckloth, supra; State v. Munro, 295 N.W.2d 437 (Iowa 1980); Barrera v. State, 99 Wis.2d 269, 298 N.W.2d 820 (1980), cert. denied 451 U.S. 972, 101 S.Ct. 2051, 68 L.Ed.2d 352 (1981).

The standard of review which we employ when considering the totality of the circumstances is "whether or not a determination of voluntariness is manifestly against the weight of the evidence . . ." State v. Roquette, 290 N.W.2d 260, 264 (N.D. 1980). The circumstances which we examine include the reason Carlson returned to the police station on March 5, whether or not Carlson understood the contents of the Miranda warnings, and why Carlson made the second statement.

In determining whether or not a waiver is made "voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently," the totality of the circumstances must be considered. State v. Roquette, 290 N.W.2d 260 (N.D. 1980). Klevgaard asserts that the totality of the circumstances were overbearing to his will and caused him to involuntarily make the inculpatory statements.