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
