Opinion ID: 1715141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statements to Cell Mate

Text: Appellant next contends that the trial court should have suppressed the confession to his cell mate because its admission contravened his sixth amendment right to counsel. The United States Supreme Court has recently held that statements made to a cell mate acting as a government informant are inadmissible. United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). In Henry, an FBI agent instructed defendant's fellow inmate to be alert for any incriminating statements that defendant might make. The inmate was subsequently placed in defendant's cell and initiated a conversation in which defendant disclosed that he had committed the charged armed robbery. Citing Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964), the Court held that the conversation was subject to suppression both because the inmate was paid and had elicited the information and because defendant was without the benefit of or opportunity to obtain counsel. We find that no sixth amendment violation occurred in the instant case. Appellant's cell mate was not paid and was not acting pursuant to government instruction. The police did not even consider the cell mate as a potential informant until he had approached the authorities on his own initiative which occurred after the inculpatory statements had been made to him by appellant. The trial court directly met any potential Henry violation by suppressing all conversations between appellant and his cell mate after the cell mate's initial contact with the police. We conclude that the trial court acted properly by admitting only appellant's unsolicited statements.