Opinion ID: 1179411
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admission of cellmates' testimony

Text: Fain contends that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Bobby Roberson and Ricky Lee Chilton, two inmates who shared a cell with Fain. Fain's assignment of error is based on his contention that Roberson and Chilton had been placed in his cell by the State in order to elicit incriminating information from him. Clearly, admission of statements made by an imprisoned defendant who is represented by counsel would violate the sixth amendment if the statements are deliberately elicited by governmental agents. Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964); United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980); and, State v. LePage, 102 Idaho 387, 630 P.2d 674 (1981). However, the sixth amendment does not forbid admission of an accused's statements to a jailhouse informant who, placed in close proximity to the accused, does not make any effort to stimulate conversations regarding the crime charged. Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986). In Kuhlmann, a jailhouse informant was placed in close proximity to the defendant and instructed to ask no questions but to listen for information regarding the crime with which defendant was charged. The informant listened and surreptitiously wrote notes detailing what defendant said. The Supreme Court held there was no sixth amendment violation, as the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks. Kuhlmann, 477 U.S. at 459, 106 S.Ct. at 2630. (Emphasis added.) See also, Lightbourne v. Dugger, 829 F.2d 1012 (11th Cir.1987). Fain was in custody and under indictment at the time Roberson and Chilton were in his cell. He was also represented by counsel. However, at a mid-trial suppression hearing, Roberson and Chilton both testified that they were not informants collecting information for the State, that they were in no way induced by payment or other favorable treatment to elicit information for the State, and that they were not acting on any government instructions to obtain evidence. On the basis of that evidence, the trial court concluded that Roberson's and Chilton's testimony should not be suppressed in that neither man was an informant collecting information for the State. The trial court concluded that any incriminating statements which Fain had made to his cellmates were not the result of any deliberate action by the government or its agents. The court's ruling on the suppression motion was clearly grounded in his belief of Roberson's and Chilton's accounts of the circumstances under which Fain spoke to them in his cell. Because of the trial judge's ruling denying the suppression motion, we may infer that he found Roberson's and Chilton's testimony at the suppression hearing credible. The determination of whether a witness is credible is one of fact, and in the context of a suppression hearing, is to be made by the trial court. Jones v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 660, 94 Cal. Rptr. 289, 483 P.2d 1241 (1971). Fain also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to require Bobby Roberson to take a psychiatric or a polygraph test. Fain claims that Roberson had a history of mental problems and that, since Fain's conviction was obtained almost entirely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the issue of the admissibility of Roberson's testimony was not a minor matter but a major issue and had the trial court required Roberson to take a psychiatric or polygraph test, Fain would have attempted to introduce the results of the test in order to show that Roberson had a motivation, reason, tendency or predisposition to lie. There is no authority for such a procedure and we find no error in the trial court's denial of the request.