DISCLAIMER:

These summaries of case decisions are intended for informational purposes only. They are not intended to be interpretations of the law, nor do they encompass the subtleties of each case. Therefore, reference to the original text is indispensable.



Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Heather Barr's Summary of "Commonwealth v. Bermudez"


Commonwealth v. Bermudez
83 Mass. App. Ct. 46 (2012) 
Summary

The Commonwealth filed an interlocutory appeal of the lower court’s granting of a motion to suppress statements that the defendant made during an interview with police. A Superior Court judge had ruled that the interview amounted to custodial interrogation, necessitating a waiver of Miranda rights, and that the defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Police investigated a shooting and wished to speak with the defendant.  The defendant, who was17 years old, went voluntarily to the police station with his mother. At the station the defendant and his mother were directed to a secured area, and the defendant was then brought to an interview room while his mother remained in the lobby.  At the beginning of the interview the officers read the defendant his Miranda rights from a card and asking the defendant if he understood each of those rights.  At school, the defendant had been diagnosed as having special needs, especially in reading and writing.  The interview lasted about seventy minutes and was conversational in manner.  The defendant was never restrained or made to believe he could not leave.  During the interview he admitted to possessing a firearm and then giving it to someone who asked for it. At the end of the interview the defendant left with his mother.

The Appeals Court found that the Superior Court Judge’s subsidiary findings of fact were clear of error but that he erred in his application of the law to the facts.  Although the interview was held in a secure area and Miranda warnings were given, the interrogation was not custodial because “viewed in their totality, and including consideration of the defendant's age, the circumstances of the defendant's interrogation were not custodial so as to trigger the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona.  The court considered the; fact that the defendant came voluntarily, he was accompanied by his mother, the interview lasted 70 minutes, and the questioning was conversational and nonthreatening.  Applying these factors the Appeals Court concluded that the defendant's interrogation was not custodial.

Although the defendant's age was below majority at the time of the interview he was not so young as to be an adolescent.  Also, the defendant was beyond the age at which Massachusetts requires consultation with an adult for a waiver to be effective.  The Appeals Court held a defendant’s age is a e factor to be considered, but that it would not consider other individualized factors peculiar to the defendant (like his special needs student status). Police are only tasked with determining how a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would understand his freedoms because they cannot be responsible to anticipate the idiosyncrasies of every individual.

The court ultimately held that the defendant's interrogation was not custodial, and consequently no Miranda warnings were necessary.  The Appeals Court reversed the order allowing the defendant's motion to suppress. 

Written  7/28/2013