In State v. James, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that the victim was acting as a government agent when she texted the defendant and elicited incriminating responses, but was not in custody, and therefore, his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not violated. Moreover, the Court ruled that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated after police failed to inform him that he was entitled to a lawyer.
The Facts & Procedural History
The defendant, Dylan James, allegedly sexual assaulted the victim, “CW.” Detectives interviewed James, and later asked CW to call James to get him to talk about the incident. James didn’t answer the phone, but eventually exchanged several text messages with CW in which he allegedly discussed the incident, admitted to having sex with CW, and that it was “rough.”
CW later testified at a grand jury proceeding and James was ultimately charged with five counts of sexual assault in the first degree.
The defense moved to suppress the text messages between James and CW. The trial court suppressed the text messages, and the State appealed the ruling.
The Law
The U.S. and Hawaii Constitutions both secure the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel. Suspects must be given Miranda warnings under the U.S. Constitution if they are “subjected to “custodial interrogation,” which is “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”
Hawaii law provides greater protection against self-incrimination, however, interrogation and custody are still required to trigger Miranda warnings.
Finally, “the right to counsel attaches only after the initiation of adversarial judicial criminal proceedings[,]” which include “formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment.”
The Court’s Reasoning — Right Against Self-Incrimination
The Court holds that although CW was in fact serving as a government agent when she texted James, “there was no “initial stop or detention” or other deprivation of freedom of action at the time James made the statements.” “Therefore, regardless of whether probable cause to arrest existed at the time CW contacted James, James was not “in custody” and there was no “custodial” interrogation. Hence, Miranda warnings were not required under either the federal or state constitutions”
The Court’s Reasoning — Right To Counsel
The Court quickly dispatches the trial court’s ruling that James’ right to counsel was violated when he wasn’t informed that he had a right to a lawyer. The court notes that adversarial, judicial “proceedings had yet to be initiated at the time of the text messages between CW and James. Therefore, the circuit court erred by suppressing the text messages based on its erroneous conclusion that James was entitled to counsel under” the U.S. and Hawaii Constitutions.
The Bottom Line
This is a fairly simple case, raising fairly basic concepts in criminal law. Yet, the trial court botches what any first-year law student would immediately recognize.
The Court hits the nail on the head, on both counts. Every lawyer knows that Miranda warnings are triggered by custody and interrogation. Yes, CW acted as a government agent and, therefore, her questions to him (which apparently elicited incriminating statements) serve as interrogation under the Fifth Amendment. However, James was never in custody, actual or constructive. Thus, Miranda was never triggered and James’ constitutional rights remained undisturbed.
The Court’s Sixth Amendment ruling is equally elementary, making the trial court’s error even more confounding. The right to counsel attaches only when adversarial judicial proceedings are initiated. These proceedings include “formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment.” This wasn’t the case here — obviously — thus, James’ constitutional rights, still, remained undisturbed.
The Court doesn’t scold the trial court in its opinion. Appellate courts sometimes do that. It should have done it here.
John Q. Prosecutor