Appeals Court -- January 23, 2012
Facts: In 2008, the defendant was involved in a brawl where the victim was wounded by a knife and resulted in his death. During a police investigation of the incident, the defendant was arrested on a warrant. Detective Cudmore advised the defendant of his Miranda rights when he was brought into booking. The defendant told the detective that he invoked his right of silence. Hence, the detective did not ask the defendant anymore question with the exception of few questions.
Approximately half an hour later, Trooper Lima and Detective Bettencourt entered the booking room. Detective Cudmore informed them that the defendant had invoked his right of silence. Lima and Bettencourt approached the defendant, who was chained to the bench, and introduced themselves. They asked the defendant whether he wished to speak. The defendant, being unfamiliar with either of the officers, said he did not care. The officers consequently made more inquiries, which Lima labelled as “admin things”. After the defendant answered a few more inquiries, Bettencourt then rapidly recited the Miranda warnings to the defendant. He was then asked to sign the document to indicate that he understood the warnings. However, he was never given an opportunity to read his rights. The officers then went on questioning the defendant about the homicide for about three hours.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress the statement made during those hours, arguing that his invocation of his rights to remain silence was not scrupulously honored and was a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The motion judge granted the suppression and the Commonwealth filed an interlocutory appeal.
Issue #1: Whether or not the defendant’s statement made during police interrogation was subjected to suppression.
Yes. In Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court held that once a suspect invoked his rights of silence, his rights needed to be scrupulously honored before he is re-approached for interrogation. The court used the five factors test in Michigan v. Mosley to determined whether the rights of the defendant was scrupulously honored.
Under the Mosley test, the first factor focused on the time elapsed between interrogations. The motion judge found that there was approximately thirty-five minutes elapsed between the defendant’s invocation of silence and the re-approached interrogation. In Mosley, the minimum time duration was not set but the Massachusetts courts determined based on the Mosley factors that thirty minutes or less was the duration when a defendant’s Miranda right was not scrupulously honored.
The second factor focused on the venue where the subsequent interrogation took place and who conducted the interrogation. In Mosley, the defendant was questioned by different officers and in a different venue. The defendant here was questioned by different officers but remained in the same booking area. Therefore, the motion judge found in parts toward the defendant and in parts for the Commonwealth.
The third factor focused on whether the defendant was given a fresh set of Miranda warnings prior to the subsequent interrogation. In Mosley, the defendant was given a fresh set of warnings at the outset of the subsequent interrogation. In this case, the defendant was given his rights after some questionings. The motion judge found that the officers gave the warnings creating the impression that the defendant already waived his rights. The appeal courts agreed.
The fourth factor focused on whether the subsequent interrogation concerned the same subjects as the prior interrogation. In this case, no one argued that the defendant was being charged with any other crimes than the homicide. The defendant had no reason to believe that he would be questioned for a different charge at the subsequent interrogation which would require him to invoke his rights again thirty minutes later. The motion judge found that the evidence weighed against the Commonwealth. The Appeals Court agreed.
The final factor focused on the zealousness of the police towards the defendant at the subsequent interrogation. In Mosley, the court required officers to be respectful to one’s rights when in custody. The officers in this case were aware of the defendant’s invocation of his rights. Yet, they approached the defendant in a manner that was not respectful of his invocation.
Therefore, the court affirmed the motion judge ruling for motion to suppress. (YN)
