Opinion ID: 1621755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's motion to suppress the testimony of other inmates.

Text: The appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing jailhouse informants to testify against the appellant concerning statements made by the appellant during his incarceration. The appellant filed a motion on October 16, 1992, to exclude the testimony of William Moore, Jimmy Myers, Billy Goney, and other inmates, based on the allegation that law enforcement officers asked the inmates to elicit statements from the appellant in violation of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964). On November 13, 1992, an evidentiary hearing was held to resolve the appellant's motion. Billy Goney and Jimmy Myers testified at the hearing. Billy Goney stated that he was incarcerated with Michael Bush at the Putnam County Jail between September or October of 1988 and April of 1989. He further alleged that, approximately one week after the appellant was placed in the jail, Bobby Lane and Doug Burgess, investigators with the Putnam County Sheriff's Department, asked Goney and fellow inmates, Guy Ramsey and Jimmy Myers, to tape conversations with Michael Bush. The inmates were told that, if they cooperated with the police, the police would help [them] out. The inmates already had access to tape recorders and tapes, and the inmates used the equipment to tape conversations with the appellant. However, Goney added, [W]hat we'd do was like Jimmy would ask Michael a question, say, did you kill that old woman, and we'd have the recorder playing and we'd ease up off the play button. Then they would ask him another question like, do you like karate, and he would say, yeah, and we'd push yeah when he was saying yes. Goney stated that he and his fellow informants made approximately three tapes, and that Jimmy Myers, his half-brother, delivered the tapes to Deputy Lane. Goney insisted that he never heard the appellant admit to killing Jodie Lefever. Jimmy Myers also testified at the hearing. He was also incarcerated at the Putnam County Jail in September of 1988. Indeed, he shared a cell with the appellant. However, Myers testified that neither Deputy Burgess nor Deputy Lane asked the inmates to record conversations with Michael Bush. Rather, Myers asserted that Goney and Ramsey first suggested taping the appellant and first contacted Deputies Lane and Burgess. His testimony is somewhat unclear as to whether the tapes were made before or after the inmates contacted the deputies. Myers conceded that the officers may have been aware that the tapes were being made. In any event, before the tapes were made, Myers heard the appellant admit to killing Ms. Lefever. Well, one time he was telling me and Billy and Ramsey all, I mean, he told us he tied Ms. Lefever up and stuff and stabbed her and waited on his wife. His wife dropped him off and came back to pick him up, and he went down to the dam and washed blood off of him and stuff. And, I mean, that's about all he said. And then some other times he would tell a different story. Again, Myers could not remember whether he and the other inmates spoke to the deputies before or after they overheard this statement. Finally, Myers conceded on cross-examination that it was common knowledge at the jail that inmates could get help from the police if they provided information. However, he testified that he was not promised any assistance in return for his testimony. Deputy Burgess testified at the hearing that he never asked any of the inmates to tape conversations with Michael Bush, nor, to his knowledge, had any other deputy made such a request. Moreover, he never received any tapes, nor was he aware that tapes had been turned over to the Sheriff's Department until he found a tape in Bobby Lane's office the day before the hearing. He was not aware of any agreement between jailhouse informants and the police. He testified that Billy Goney and, possibly, Jimmy Myers had asked to speak with him several times. He spoke with Goney privately maybe one or two times. He told Goney to keep his ears open and if he heard anything, let us know. Goney was unable to provide any useful information. At a subsequent hearing, on December 10, 1992, Burgess stated that he would not have turned to inmates to obtain incriminating statements from Michael Bush because [t]hat's no good in court. We can't use it. At the December 10 hearing, Deputy Bobby Lane testified that, during the course of his investigation of the Lefever murder, he never asked inmates to secretly record conversations with the appellant. Goney approached him with two tapes, but [t]he tapes was garbage. There wasn't any use in keeping the tapes. Lane did not have any subsequent conversations with Goney about the tapes, nor did Lane talk to any other inmate. On December 22, 1992, the trial court denied the appellant's motion, observing, I think it's a question of credibility for the jury to decide. At trial, no tapes were introduced into evidence. However, Jimmy Myers and William Roger Moore testified. Jimmy Myers again stated that he had heard the appellant admit to killing Jodie Lefever. Bush also told Myers that he was going to try to make people think he was crazy. Myers testified that these statements were not recorded, as the informants began taping the appellant only after the appellant's lawyers advised him against talking to fellow inmates about the murder. After the appellant was so advised, he changed his story several times. Finally, Myers insisted that he was never offered any form of compensation in return for his testimony. On cross-examination, he conceded that he had written a letter to an assistant district attorney, in which he stated, If you can help me out in any way, I promise you that you will not be sorry. Finally, William Roger Moore, another fellow inmate of Michael Bush following the appellant's incarceration at the Putnam County Jail, also testified at trial. Moore stated that, as there was very little to do at the jail, Bush approached him and initiated several conversations. The appellant admitted to Moore that he had killed Jodie Lefever. The appellant also stated that he was going to make a ploy for craziness. Moore imparted this information to Special Agent O'Rear, an agent with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. Moore testified that he was not offered any compensation in return for his cooperation, nor did he ask for any compensation. Again, the appellant argues that any incriminating statements made by the appellant to fellow inmates were elicited in violation of Massiah . We note, initially, that, because only Jimmy Myers and William Moore testified at trial, the denial of the motion to suppress with respect to Goney and other inmates, even if erroneous, was harmless. See Hartman v. State, 896 S.W.2d 94, 100 (Tenn. 1995); State v. Sparks, 727 S.W.2d 480, 482 (Tenn. 1987), post-conviction relief granted, Sparks v. state, 03S01-9212-CR-00105, 1993 WL 151324 (Tenn. May 10, 1993). With respect to Myers and Moore, the clear rule of Massiah is that once adversary proceedings have commenced against an individual, he has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 401, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 1240, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977). Thus, in order to find a Massiah violation, a court must first determine (1) whether adversary proceedings had commenced; (2) whether the informant was a government agent; and (3) whether the agent interrogated the appellant within the meaning of Massiah . The initiation of adversary proceedings is marked by formal charge, which [has been] construe[d] to be an arrest warrant, or at the time of the preliminary hearing in those rare cases where a preliminary hearing is not preceded by an arrest warrant, or by indictment or presentment. State v. Mitchell, 593 S.W.2d 280, 286 (Tenn. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 845, 101 S.Ct. 128, 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980). Clearly, at the time the appellant allegedly made the incriminating statements to fellow inmates, he had been formally charged and, probably, indicted. [4a] It is arguably unclear whether Myers was acting as a government agent. This court in State v. Dunn, No. 85-356-III, 1986 WL 6322 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, June 6, 1986) observed, Although Massiah and it progeny do not explicitly define the term `state agent,' the conduit in each of these cases was clearly a state agent, operating as such, when the conversations occurred. Thus, any admissions made by the appellant before law enforcement officers became involved would, of course, be admissible. Hartman, 896 S.W.2d at 100. [T]he Sixth Amendment is not violated whenever  by luck or happenstance  the State obtains incriminating statements from the accused after the right to counsel has attached. Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 176, 106 S.Ct. 477, 487, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Again, at the suppression hearing, Goney testified that Deputies Burgess and Lane asked inmates, including Myers, to record conversations with the appellant. However, Goney's testimony was largely contradicted by the testimony of both deputies and by the testimony of Myers. [5a] At trial, Myers recounted statements by the appellant, overheard prior to the recording of any conversations. At the suppression hearing, Myers could not remember whether he heard these statements before or after first talking to Burgess and Lane. Both deputies, for the most part, denied enlisting inmates to obtain statements from the appellant, although Deputy Burgess admitted that he might have asked Goney to keep his ears open. Even assuming that Myers was a state agent, the appellant at the suppression hearing also carried the burden of demonstrating that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks. Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 456, 459, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 2628, 2630, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986). At the suppression hearing, Goney testified that he and Guy Ramsey recorded conversations with the appellant, during which they attempted, with Myers' assistance, to elicit and, indeed, fabricate a confession. [6a] However, Myers testified that he did not participate in the recording of any statements. Rather, he testified both at the suppression hearing and at trial that he merely overheard the appellant confess to the murder of Ms. Lefever. There is no evidence in the record that this statement was made in response to efforts by the other inmates to stimulate conversation about the crime charged. Given the conflicting testimony adduced at the suppression hearing, the record supports the trial court's denial of the appellant's motion with respect to Jimmy Myers. The findings made by the trial court after an evidentiary hearing are afforded the weight of a jury verdict; this court will not set aside the judgment of the trial court unless the evidence in the record preponderates against its findings. State v. Stephenson, 878 S.W.2d 530, 544 (Tenn. 1994); State v. Dick, 872 S.W.2d 938, 943 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1993); State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d 228, 233 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). In any event, assuming for the sake of argument that Myers was a state agent and assuming that he interrogated the appellant within the meaning of Massiah , the admission at trial of Myers' testimony was harmless error. See Hartman, 896 S.W.2d at 100; Sparks, 727 S.W.2d at 482. William Moore testified at trial concerning almost identical statements made by the appellant to him in the Putnam County Jail. The record is devoid of evidence that Moore was a state agent at the time of his conversations with Michael Bush, nor is there evidence that he made any effort to elicit statements from the accused about the crime charged. This issue is without merit.