Opinion ID: 1119095
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the district court's admission of Simmons' intercepted telephone conversation violated Simmons' Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Text: The United States Constitution provides that every person accused in a criminal prosecution shall enjoy the right to have the Assistance of Counsel. U.S. Const. amend. VI. This right extends to State prosecutions under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This court has stated, `[a]t the very least, the prosecutor and police have an affirmative obligation not to act in a manner that circumvents and thereby dilutes the protection afforded by the right to counsel.' Coleman v. State, 109 Nev. 1, 4, 846 P.2d 276, 278 (1993) (quoting Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 171, 106 S.Ct. 477, 484, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)). A defendant is denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel if, once the right attaches, government agents deliberately elicit incriminating statements in the absence of defendant's attorney. Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 206, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 1203, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964); see also Emmons v. State, 107 Nev. 53, 58, 807 P.2d 718, 721 (1991) (quoting Thompson v. State, 105 Nev. 151, 156, 771 P.2d 592, 596 (1989) (incriminating statements made to jailhouse informant acting on his own initiative and without agreement with State may be used without violating state or federal constitutional rights)). The determination of whether a person is a State agent must be made under the facts and circumstances of each case. United States v. Taylor, 800 F.2d 1012, 1015 (10th Cir.1986). Moreover, [i]ssues concerning exigent circumstances, consent, and whether an individual is acting as an agent for the police present mixed questions of fact and law. State v. Miller, 110 Nev. 690, 694, 877 P.2d 1044, 1047 (1994) (citing Hayes v. State, 106 Nev. 543, 550 n. 1, 797 P.2d 962, 966 (1990)). The State argues that Mike O. was not a State agent and that any incriminating statements Simmons made to his friend could therefore be used as evidence without violating Simmons' right to counsel. The State supports its position by first noting that law enforcement officers did not invite Mike O. to make the call. It was only after Mike O. found out from Simmons' girlfriend that Simmons wanted to talk to him that Mike O. informed the police of the situation. Second, at the time of the intercept, Mike O. had the option whether to pick up the receiver and accept the call from Simmons, with no pressure from the State. Third, the State did not enter into any type of agreement with Mike O. or instruct him how to proceed (other than telling him not to seek incriminating information from Simmons). The State thus concludes that substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that Mike O. was not an agent of the State and that this finding should not be disturbed on appeal. Simmons presents the contrary argument that when Mike O. invited the police into his home to surreptitiously monitor the call in order to inculpate him, and thereafter accepted Simmons' call knowing that it would be intercepted by the police, Mike O. entered into an agreement with the police that made him an agent of the State. See Holyfield v. State, 101 Nev. 793, 798-804, 711 P.2d 834, 837-41 (1985) (upon agreeing to foster police efforts to inculpate Holyfield, [Jacobs] became an agent of the police (for Fifth Amendment purposes) because police placed him near Holyfield to seek incriminating statements and expected him to do so (because of his past experience as an informant and his relationship with Holyfield) even though police told him not to question Holyfield). Moreover, Simmons contends that a quid pro quo agreement was unnecessary to elevate Mike O. to the status of an agent. See State v. Currington, 113 Idaho 538, 746 P.2d 997, 1003-04 (Ct.App.1987) (lack of monetary compensation notwithstanding, informant was deemed an agent whose acts were attributable to the State where informant followed the State's instructions in recording defendant, used State equipment to record, and promptly returned recording to the State). Simmons nevertheless notes that despite the lack of necessity to show that Mike O. was receiving a quid pro quo from the police, Mike O. was a juvenile probationer who was familiar with the justice system and potentially had something to gain through cooperation with law enforcement authorities. Simmons also cites the case of State v. Mattatall, 525 A.2d 49 (R.I.1987), cert. denied, Mattatall v. Rhode Island, 506 U.S. 838, 113 S.Ct. 117, 121 L.Ed.2d 74 (1992), where the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's reversal of a trial court's finding that the informant was not a government agent. In Mattatall, an informant voluntarily informed police of defendant's actions, and subsequently invited the police to intercept a conversation in which the informant questioned the defendant about the charges. Id. Since Mike O. also initially contacted the police about Simmons, invited the police to listen in on the conversation and posed numerous questions to Simmons likely to elicit incriminating remarks, Simmons deduces that Mike O. must be considered a State agent. We disagree and conclude that the district court did not err in determining that Mike O. was not an agent of the State. First, substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that Mike O. did not initiate the call from Simmons. Mike O. testified that Simmons' girlfriend told him that Simmons wanted to call him, and Mike O., apparently concerned about such a conversation, asked his father about the course of action he should follow. Second, there is no evidence of any quid pro quo resulting from Mike O.'s cooperation with the police. Mike O. voluntarily informed the police about the pending call. In addition, the police, Mike O. and his father testified that no agreement materialized between Mike O. and the police in exchange for his cooperation and consent to intercept the phone call. Finally, there is no evidence that the police coerced or baited Mike O. into receiving Simmons' phone call or continuing in his conversation with Simmons. Prior to the phone call, the police only requested that Mike O. refrain from seeking to elicit incriminating information from Simmons. Mike O. voluntarily spoke to Simmons and no evidence suggests that his continuing conversation with his incarcerated friend was anything but voluntary. See Taylor, 800 F.2d at 1016 (absence of quid pro quo and government instructions supported conclusion that informant was not a State agent). Recently, in State v. Miller, 110 Nev. 690, 877 P.2d 1044 (1994), this court discussed agency in the context of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In Miller, a twelve-year-old baby-sitter suspected illicit drug activity in the home where she was employed. The baby-sitter called 911 and indicated that she had found what she thought was possibly drugs. Id. at 695 n. 2, 877 P.2d at 1048. An officer soon arrived at the home and asked, in an effort to confirm or allay the baby-sitter's fears, if he could see what she was calling about. The baby-sitter directed the officer to a bedroom where she secured a grocery bag and handed it to the officer. The officer immediately observed that the bag contained baggies of marijuana. Id. at 695-96, 877 P.2d at 1048. In Miller, we recognized that the baby-sitter was acting out of respect for the law and her concern over the possibility of tending small children in an environment where illicit drugs were kept. Moreover, consistent with the instant case, the baby-sitter sought out the police and law enforcement authorities never attempted through any means to elicit her cooperation. Id. We concluded: It was in the highest tradition of good citizenship when Jennifer [the baby-sitter], despite her fears, had the courage and good sense to summon the police for help in determining whether her suspicions were well-founded. As observed by the Court in Coolidge [ v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 488-89, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2049-50, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, reh'g denied, 404 U.S. 874, 92 S.Ct. 26, 30 L.Ed.2d 120 (1971)], it is in no sense the policy of the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments to discourage citizens from assisting in the apprehension of criminals. Id. (footnote omitted). On a similar vein, we note that Mike O. contacted the police out of concern for his and his family's safety and after a contemplative discussion with his father. Additionally, we note that the police never attempted to coerce Mike O.'s cooperation; to the contrary, they carefully explained that it was only with his consent that they would proceed with the intercept. As with the Fourth Amendment, the policy of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments is not to discourage citizens from assisting in the apprehension of criminals. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Miller, 110 Nev. at 696-97, 877 P.2d at 1048-49. For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that Mike O. was not acting as an agent of the police. Having concluded that Mike O. was not an agent of the State, we logically also conclude that Simmons' Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel was not violated. See Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964); Emmons v. State, 107 Nev. 53, 807 P.2d 718 (1991).