State v. McNeely
8 P.3d 212 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An inmate who obtains incriminating statements from a defendant is not a state agent for constitutional purposes unless the police or another state actor are sufficiently involved in initiating, planning, controlling, or supporting the inmate's activities.
Facts:
- In March 1993, the victim disappeared from Portland.
- In May 1993, the victim's body was discovered in a dumpster; an autopsy concluded she died of strangulation.
- While the defendant was in jail awaiting trial, another inmate introduced him to Thompson.
- Over a period of three to four days, the defendant had several conversations with Thompson.
- During these conversations, the defendant made incriminating statements to Thompson about his involvement in the victim's death.
- A few days after the conversations, Thompson contacted the police and disclosed the defendant's incriminating statements.
- Thompson acted on his own initiative without any direction, planning, control, or support from the police or any state agency.
- Thompson's motivation was the hope that providing this information might benefit his own legal situation.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in trial court with aggravated murder and other felonies.
- Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the testimony of Thompson, a fellow inmate, arguing Thompson was a state agent.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress.
- A jury convicted the defendant of seven counts of aggravated murder and 12 other felonies.
- Following the penalty phase, the trial court sentenced the defendant to death.
- The defendant's conviction and death sentence were appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon for automatic and direct review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jail inmate become a state agent, for purposes of a defendant's right to counsel, when they obtain incriminating statements from the defendant on their own initiative and without any police involvement, but with the hope of receiving a future benefit from the state?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Hoomissen, J.
No. A jail inmate does not become a state agent merely by eliciting incriminating information on their own initiative with the subjective hope of gaining a future benefit from the state. For an informant's actions to be attributed to the state, there must be evidence that the police were involved to a sufficient extent in initiating, planning, controlling, or supporting the informant’s activities. Here, there was no evidence that any state actor asked, directed, or supported Thompson in obtaining information from the defendant. Thompson acted as a private citizen for his own reasons. The fact that he might later receive a benefit for his cooperation does not retroactively transform his initial, independent actions into state action.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar required to establish that a jailhouse informant is a 'state agent' whose actions could violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The court makes clear that a passive relationship, where the state is merely the recipient of unsolicited information, does not trigger constitutional protections. This precedent protects the admissibility of informant testimony where the informant acts proactively and independently, preventing defendants from suppressing damaging admissions simply because the informant was motivated by self-interest and a hope for future leniency.
Unlock the full brief for State v. McNeely