Court Opinion

ID: 9693413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:40:46.446585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:46.161210
License: Public Domain

CASTILLE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s holding that the Commonwealth violated appellant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. I believe that the majority’s holding misconstrues federal precedent and is not warranted under Article I, Section 9. Further, I believe that the admission of the testimony in question was harmless error and that a new trial is unwarranted.
The majority concludes that there was an implicit understanding between the jailhouse informant and the Commonwealth even though police never gave Krushinski specific instructions or requested Krushinski to provide any information whatsoever. According to the majority, Krushinski had an incentive to continue seeking inculpatory statements from fellow inmates after the Commonwealth rewarded him for the receipt of unsolicited information in the past. The majority believes that Krushinski’s subjective expectations of future rewards in exchange for unsolicited information effectuated a principal-agent relationship between the Commonwealth and Krushinski. This position finds no support in Sixth Amendment precedent. The majority’s analysis under the Pennsylvania Constitution is predicated upon its Sixth Amendment analysis. However, today’s holding is irreconcilable with cases construing the Sixth Amendment.
*397In Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964), the United States Supreme Court announced that the Sixth Amendment prohibits law enforcement officers from interrogating a defendant after his or her indictment and in the absence of counsel. In Massiah, police intercepted a conversation in which the indicted petitioner made inculpatory remarks to his co-defendant by installing a listening device in the parked car where the conversation took place after obtaining the co-defendant’s permission. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s suppression of the police officer’s testimony relaying the conversation on the ground that the statements were obtained in violation of the petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The Supreme Court first considered the issue of inmate informants in United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). In Henry, a government agent conducting a bank robbery investigation contacted an inmate who for some time had been providing confidential information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a paid informant. The informant was housed in the same cellblock as several federal prisoners awaiting trial, including Henry. The agent told the informant to be alert to any statements made by the prisoners, but not to initiate any conversation or question Henry regarding the bank robbery charges. The informant disregarded this instruction, questioned Henry, and then provided information to the government which helped convict Henry. The United States Supreme Court held that where an individual acts under instructions as a paid informant for the government, where he presents himself as no more than a fellow inmate rather than an agent of the government, and where the suspect is in custody and under indictment at the time of his questioning by the informant, the information secured by the informant must be suppressed, Id. at 270-71, 100 S.Ct. at 2186-87, 65 L.Ed.2d at 122. The Supreme Court reasoned that the agent’s questioning, which was attributable to the government, secured information from the accused when counsel was not present in violation of the accused’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Id.
*398In Kuhlmann v. Wilson, All U.S. 436, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986), an inmate who was incarcerated pending trial was placed in a cell with a prisoner who had previously agreed to act as a government informant. The State instructed the informant only to listen to the inmate’s comments and not to ask any questions. The informant complied with this directive. The Court found that the informant in that case played the constitutionally permissible role of a mere “listening post.” Id. 477 U.S. at 456 n. 19, 106 S.Ct. at 2628 n. 19. The Court held that this fact distinguished Kuhlmann from Henry, concluding that “the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks.” Id. at 459, 106 S.Ct. at 2630. Consequently, statements “deliberately elicited” by the government from a defendant after the right to counsel has attached and in the absence of a valid waiver are rendered inadmissible and cannot be used against the defendant at trial. Massiah, 377 U.S. at 206, 84 S.Ct. at 1203. However, incriminatory statements by a defendant will not be excluded merely because the statements are made after judicial proceedings have been initiated and in the absence of a valid waiver. Rather, law enforcement officials must actively engage in some conduct that infringes upon the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right. See Kuhlmann at 459, 106 S.Ct. at 2630.
In Henry, the Court considered three factors in determining that the government had overstepped the bounds of the Sixth Amendment. First, the informant was acting under instructions as a paid informant for the government. Second, Henry was unaware that his confidant was in fact a government informant. Finally, Henry was in custody and under indictment at the time of the conversation; therefore, his incarceration imposed psychological pressures that rendered him “particularly susceptible to the ploys of undercover government agents.” Henry, 447 U.S. at 274, 100 S.Ct. at 2189.
Here, Krushinski was not acting as an agent of the Commonwealth under the test set forth in Henry. Unlike the informant in Henry, Krushinski had not been promised any *399consideration by the Commonwealth in exchange for information concerning appellant. The fact that appellant’s youth and inexperience made him, in the eyes of the majority, more susceptible to Krushinski’s claim of connections outside of the prison, is of no consequence because Krushinski was not an agent of the state. Appellant may have unwittingly fallen prey to Krushinski’s selfish motives while incarcerated, but the same lapse could have happened outside the prison setting. Further, Krushinski was at Chester County Prison solely as an accommodation to Lancaster County authorities. The Commonwealth did not “plant” him in the prison or keep him there for the purpose of providing information.
Furthermore, the facts do not reveal the existence of an implied agreement between Krushinski and the Commonwealth. Although Krushinski was providing authorities with information concerning more than one criminal defendant, each time it was he who initiated the contact with police. The fact that police subsequently agreed to inform the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas of his cooperation at the time of his sentencing did not retroactively create an agency relationship between the Commonwealth and Krushinski where no agreement occurred. Krushinski may have been gathering information for his own selfish purposes, but there was no negotiating process or bargaining between Krushinski and the Commonwealth wherein the Commonwealth agreed to provide continued incentives to Krushinski in exchange for more information.1
The Commonwealth was purely a passive beneficiary of a conversation initiated exclusively by Krushinski, with only Krushinski’s expectation of any consideration. The majority believes that the Commonwealth should be stripped of these passively acquired fruits, apparently due to its belief that *400appellant was unfairly outwitted by Krushinski. However, because the Commonwealth did not take any active steps to aid Krushinski in outwitting appellant, the Sixth Amendment simply is not implicated.
In Commonwealth v. Moose, 529 Pa. 218, 602 A.2d 1265 (1992), this Court confronted the question of whether the use of a jailhouse informant violated the Sixth Amendment rights of an inmate who was incarcerated pending trial. The informant had been kept in the county jail for three years pending sentencing because he was actively supplying the district attorney’s office with information about various inmates. The Commonwealth repeatedly delayed sentencing every time the informant produced a new jailhouse admission. This Court determined that although the informant was not “planted” for purposes of gaining information from targeted defendants, he effectively became an agent of the state after being detained in the county jail for years for the purpose of collecting information. This Court reasoned that “the fact that the Commonwealth intentionally left him there to harvest information from anyone charged with a crime and awaiting trial [was] the villainy.” Id. at 228, 602 A.2d at 1270.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Moose is controlling. In Moose, the prosecutor specifically agreed not to bring the informant up for sentencing as long as he was providing information. That informant was convicted of third-degree murder and was facing state prison time. Instead, he remained housed in county prison for three years as part of his arrangement with the prosecutor’s office. Further, the Commonwealth in Moose was prepared to recommend a lenient sentence despite the serious nature of the informant’s crimes. 529 Pa. at 229, 602 A.2d at 1270. Here, although the officers were prepared to inform the sentencing court of Krushinski’s cooperation in prior, unrelated eases, there was no agreement that the Commonwealth would request leniency for Krushinski stemming from his cooperation in any case, including appellant’s. Krushinski was incarcerated for theft by deception and impersonating a public servant. He was not likely to be sentenced to state prison, and his sentencing was not delayed as in Moose.
*401The majority’s holding sets the precedent that if a jailhouse informant provides information to authorities on his own volition and the Commonwealth subsequently rewards him, the informant becomes an agent of the Commonwealth for purposes of all future encounters with fellow inmates. Thus, according to the majority’s reasoning, the subjective hope or intent of one inmate, the informant, controls the determination of whether another inmate’s Sixth Amendment rights have been violated. Yet the majority cannot cite to any authority from this Court or from the United States Supreme Court that would support such a contention. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Kuhlmann, “the 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.... [A] defendant does not make out a violation of that right simply by showing that an informant, either through prior arrangement or voluntarily, reported his incriminating statements to the police.” Kuhlmann, 477 U.S. at 459, 106 S.Ct. at 2629-30. Further, as the majority concedes, in the absence of a reward, there would be no incentive for informants to aid law enforcement agencies. Krushinski may have been hoping for future rewards and may have anticipated that his continued efforts would prove beneficial to him, but his subjective expectation is of no consequence absent an express agreement by which the state became an active partner for purposes of extracting information from appellant.
Appellant has not demonstrated, as he must under Kuhlmann, that the police and Krushinski took some action that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks. 477 U.S. at 459, 106 S.Ct. at 2629-30. Krushinski alone gathered all of the information in the instant matter prior to calling the authorities. He was not left in the prison specifically to continue his information gathering activities. Rather, he was transferred out of the prison the day after he volunteered to authorities the information concerning appellant. Appellant should not benefit by his misplaced confidence in Krushinski’s perfidy.
*402This Court recently recognized that independent acts of inmates do not become imbued with the character of governmental action merely because they are later relied upon and used by the government in furtherance of governmental objectives. Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 549 Pa. 352, 701 A.2d 492 (1997). In Hawkins, this Court upheld the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress his inculpatory statements to two fellow inmates. This Court concluded that there was no violation of the appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel because neither informant was acting as an agent of the government. The record demonstrated that the two informants were acting on their own initiative without the benefit of any promise or reward by the Commonwealth in return for their cooperation. Further, police did not give either informant any information which would have enhanced their- ability to solicit information from the appellant. Moreover, neither informant was intentionally placed in a cell near the appellant in order to aid in the investigation. 701 A.2d at 505.
Thus, under Hawkins, there is no Sixth Amendment violation where, as here, incriminating statements are made to a prison inmate who is acting on his own initiative, without promise of benefit from the Commonwealth, and who has been placed in a nearby cell by happenstance and not design. The majority concedes that no law enforcement agent ever gave Krushinski specific instructions or requested that he provide information regarding appellant. No officer of the Commonwealth ever discussed appellant with Krushinski prior to appellant’s jailhouse confession. Further, nothing in the record reveals that the police provided Krushinski with any information concerning appellant’s case which would have enhanced his ability to solicit information from appellant. Thus, Krushinski was not armed with any information that would have given him an unfair advantage over appellant. There is no evidence that the Commonwealth intentionally placed Krushinski in the cell adjacent to appellant’s;2 rather, he was moved *403to maximum security only after other inmates had discovered that he was an informant and assaulted him.
I am persuaded by the reasoning of United States v. Hicks, 798 F.2d 446 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1035, 107 S.Ct. 886, 93 L.Ed.2d 839 (1987). In Hicks, the defendant had been arrested and advised of her right to counsel, and had requested an attorney. While in jail she confessed to another inmate, and later sought to have the statement suppressed on the ground that it was obtained in violation of her right to counsel. The 11th Circuit held that because the informant had not been instructed by law enforcement officials to gather information while in custody, no violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had occurred. The fact that the informant had worked as a government informant on an unrelated matter did not render the informant an agent of the government for all purposes. Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 364 Pa.Super. 54, 527 A.2d 148 (1987), appeal denied, 521 Pa. 611, 557 A.2d 343 (1989) (not a violation of defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel where incriminating statements were made to a prison inmate who was acting on his own initiative and without promise of benefit from Commonwealth and who had been placed in adjoining cell by happenstance and not design).
In its haste to extend the Sixth Amendment to the facts of this case, the majority neglects to examine whether the underlying goals of the Sixth Amendment would be served by such an extension. The primary concern of the Massiah line of decisions is secret interrogation by investigatory techniques that are the equivalent of direct police interrogation. Kuhlmann, 477 U.S. at 459, 106 S.Ct. at 2629, 91 L.Ed.2d. at 384. Here, there was no action taken by the Commonwealth to encourage Krushinski, a private citizen, to question appellant *404regarding his crime. Thus, the Sixth Amendment does not mandate the result reached by the majority.
Nor am I convinced that there has been a violation of appellant’s right to counsel under Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. While I do not necessarily agree with the majority that appellant’s state constitutional claim was not waived by failing to include in his brief a detailed analysis of the four factors set forth in Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374, 586 A.2d 887 (1991), I nevertheless disagree with the result reached by the majority in its cursory analysis of appellant’s claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Prior to the majority’s decision herein, this Court had not yet addressed the appropriate level of constitutional protection afforded by Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution under the circumstances presented by the instant matter. Although the majority adopts the reasoning of federal precedent to support its conclusion that appellant’s rights under Article 1, Section 9 were violated, for the reasons aforementioned, I believe that the majority has misconstrued federal precedent. Therefore, those cases do not provide persuasive authority to support the majority’s conclusion. Further, I do not believe that it is necessary in this case to expand the right to counsel under the Pennsylvania Constitution beyond the level of protection afforded by the Sixth Amendment.
Article I, Section 9 provides:
Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions
In all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right to be heard by himself and his counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to meet the witnesses face to face, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and, in prosecutions by indictment or information, a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage; he cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor can he be deprived of his life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land. The use of a suppressed voluntary admission or voluntary confession to impeach the credibility of a person *405may be permitted and shall not be construed as compelling a person to give evidence against himself.
Here, there is no demonstrated need to extend protections under the Pennsylvania Constitution beyond those provided by the United States Constitution. As previously stated, Brushinski acted on his own volition without solicitation on the part of the government in eliciting inculpatory statements from appellant. Accordingly, there was no action on the part of the government that infringed appellant’s rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Other states have specifically declined to interpret their state constitutions to provide more protection than Kuhlmann and Massiah under the Sixth Amendment. See Battenfield v. Oklahoma, 816 P.2d 555, 562 (Okl.Crim.App.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 943, 112 S.Ct. 1491, 117 L.Ed.2d 632 (1992) (no violation of Oklahoma or United States Constitution where inmate awaiting trial initiated conversation and made inculpatory statements to uniformed state agent); New Jersey v. Bey, 258 N.J.Super. 451, 610 A.2d 403 (1992) (no violation of United States or New Jersey Constitution where inmate, on own volition, made inculpatory statements to corrections officer who was not acting under direction of state except for performing routine duties). The courts of Kentucky have declared that “the right to counsel guaranteed by Section 11 of the Kentucky Constitution3 is no greater than the right of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United *406States....” Cane v. Kentucky, 556 S.W.2d 902, 906 (Ky.Ct.App.1977) cert. denied, 437 U.S. 906, 98 S.Ct. 3094, 57 L.Ed.2d 1136 (1978).4 Thus, this Court should not expand the right to counsel under the Pennsylvania Constitution to include greater protections than those afforded by the Sixth Amendment in this instance.
Finally, even if appellant’s right to counsel under either constitution was violated, a new trial is not warranted because the admission of Krushinski’s testimony was harmless error. Appellant confessed his crime to two other persons in addition to Krushinski. Appellant admitted to his friend, Jason Reuben Armstrong, that he murdered the victim and showed Armstrong where the body was located. Appellant also called his girlfriend, Dana Kind, and told her that he had killed someone, the location of the murder, and his fear that he had dropped his eyeglasses and lighter somewhere near the scene of the crime.5 N.T. at 1182. Thus, the testimony of Krushinski merely corroborated the testimony of the other witnesses to whom appellant had confessed. Accordingly, no new trial is warranted.
NEWMAN, J., joins this dissenting opinion.

. The majority makes much of the fact that the police arranged for the depositing of funds into Krushinski's prison account. The police provided money to Krushinski in order to protect his safety. Krushinski had told other inmates, including one that he had informed on, that he had connections to the outside world. If it were to be revealed that his inmate account was devoid of funds, his facade would have been revealed and he would have been placed in danger. The administering of the funds was not conditional upon his continued cooperation.

. Many of the conversations between Krushinski and appellant took place in the dayroom of the cellblock, a common area used by all *403inmates. Thus, the proximity of the cells is of minimal importance, as it appears the conversations would have taken place even if Krushinski’s cell had been located further away from appellant’s. The majority's position that the Commonwealth circumvented appellant’s right to counsel by intentionally creating an opportunity to confront the accused without counsel being present is insupportable.

. Section 11 of the Kentucky Constitution provides:
RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION; CHANGE OF VENUE
In all criminal prosecutions the accused has the right to be heard by himself and counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him; to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. He cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor can he be deprived of his life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and in prosecutions by indictment or information, he shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage; but the General Assembly may provide by a general law for a change of venue in such prosecutions for both the defendant and the Commonwealth, the change to be made to the most convenient county in which a fair trial can be obtained.

. The interpretation of the Kentucky Constitution is especially persuasive because that document was modeled after the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Kentucky v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487, 498 (noting that cases interpreting the Pennsylvania Constitution are "uniquely persuasive” in construing the Kentucky Constitution because of the common heritage shared by the Kentucky Bill of Rights of 1792 and the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights of 1790).

. A broken pair of eyeglasses, which appellant later admitted were his, were found near the body. Defendant’s mother and optician also verified that the glasses were his.