Gutierrez v. Nooth
275 Or. App. 171
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Petitioner was jailed after being charged with kidnapping and sexual-assault offenses and invoked his right to counsel during initial jail questioning.
- A jailmate (Wilson), who had a long history of cooperating with law enforcement, arranged phone calls between petitioner and an undercover officer posing as a hit man; those calls were recorded and contained petitioner’s admissions about hiring someone to kill two people.
- Petitioner was later indicted on murder-related charges based on those recorded calls; the court admitted transcripts and convicted petitioner of both sexual-assault and murder-related offenses.
- On post-conviction review, petitioner argued trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to move to suppress the recorded statements under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
- The post-conviction court found counsel’s failure to move was unreasonable as to the Fifth Amendment but held petitioner was not prejudiced because the statements were not obtained in custodial interrogation and because petitioner did not show he knew he was speaking to police; it also rejected the Sixth Amendment claim.
- The court of appeals affirmed, concluding the Fifth Amendment was inapplicable because petitioner did not know he was speaking with law enforcement, and the Sixth Amendment did not bar eliciting statements about offenses that were not the same as the charged sexual-assault offenses under Blockburger/Cobb.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel barred recorded conversations after he invoked counsel | Petitioner: After invoking counsel, any further interrogation by state agents violated Miranda/Edwards and required suppression | State: Petitioner did not know he was speaking to police; Perkins controls so Miranda/Edwards do not apply | Held: No Fifth-Amendment violation — petitioner did not know he was speaking to agents, so not custodial interrogation, so no prejudice from counsel’s failure to move to suppress |
| Whether petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel barred elicitation of statements about murder-for-hire after prosecution began on sexual-assault charges | Petitioner: Murder-related questioning was so intertwined with charged offenses that elicitation violated his Sixth Amendment right and should be suppressed | State: Sixth Amendment is offense-specific; Cobb/Blockburger limit attachment to charged offenses (and those that are the same offense) | Held: No Sixth-Amendment violation — murder-for-hire offenses were not the same as the earlier charged sexual-assault offenses, so statements were admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (once counsel requested, further interrogation prohibited unless initiated by accused)
- Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (no Miranda violation when inmate speaks to undercover informant he believes is fellow inmate)
- Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (Sixth Amendment attaches only to charged offenses and offenses that are the same under Blockburger)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (test for whether two statutory provisions constitute the same offense)
- McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at initiation of adversary proceedings)