83 Mass. App. Ct. 180
On November 12, 2010, Revere police
contacted the defendant to speak to him about the allegations his stepdaughter
had made to the police. Once at the station, Detectives John Cannon and Steven
Pisano told the defendant that they were investigating his stepdaughter’s
allegations of sexual assault and conducted a “pre-interview,” that was not
recorded, with the defendant. In the pre-interview the detectives obtained the
defendant’s biographical information and the defendant stated that he knew of
the allegations made by his stepdaughter. During the pre-interview, the
detectives did not ask the defendant about the sexual assault allegations.
The defendant was then taken to an
interview room where a recorded interview was performed. Before the interview
began, the defendant was informed of his Miranda rights and signed a written
waiver of said rights. Detective Pisano asked the defendant about the
allegations that his stepdaughter had made. The stepdaughter stated that, two
weeks earlier, the defendant, while intoxicated, had touched her underneath her
bra and down the front of her pants. The defendant stated that he believed his
stepdaughter was telling the truth but later stated that he did not remember
touching her due to the fact that he had been drunk. Detective Pisano continued
to ask about the allegations and once again the defendant stated that he
touched his stepdaughter underneath her bra. Pisano then asked the defendant
about the allegations that he touched her vaginal area but the defendant denied
having any knowledge of this or remembering doing so. The defendant stated that
he knew his behavior was wrong and acknowledged that his stepdaughter was
telling the truth.
The defendant was charged with indecent
assault and battery. The District Court granted the defendant’s motion to
suppress incriminating statements the defendant made to police officers. The
Commonwealth appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court. A single justice allowed
the interlocutory appeal and reported the case to the Appeals Court.
The
Appeals Court addressed several issues:
1)The
Appeals Court ruled that the defendant made “a knowing, intelligent and
voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights.” The court reasoned that the detectives
went over the defendant’s Miranda rights during the taped interview. During
this time the defendant acknowledged that the pre-interview was a limited
interview and at no time during said interview was he coerced or threatened by
the police.
2) The
Appeals Court found that the defendant’s will was not overborne by any
oppressive interview techniques. The defendant raised the issue of the
voluntariness of his statements. To determine the voluntariness of a
defendant’s statement, the court looks at the “totality of the circumstance.”
In the case at bar, the defendant had control over his actions and mental
faculties throughout the interview. Additionally the interview was short, taking
less than an hour. The court also noted that the defendant had been aware of
the allegations for several days before he gave the statement, and thus, had
sufficient time to decide what he was going to tell the police. Most
importantly the defendant readily accepted, several times, his stepdaughters
allegations, which further prove that his will had not been overborne.
3) The
Appeals Court found that the statements
concerning the allegations fair and did not coerce the defendant’s statements.
Detective Pisano made it clear that he believed the stepdaughter’s allegations
and he invited the defendant to convince him that the allegations were false.
Written 6/30/2013
