Com v. Lavendier

Commonwealth v. Lavendier

79 Mass. App. Ct. 501 (2011)
Massachusetts Appeals Court
May 12, 2011


Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence, Voluntariness of Statement, Intoxication

Facts

The defendant was seen driving a white pickup trick in an erratic manner and striking objects on the side of a road. Witnesses called the Orleans police and by the time they arrived the truck was parked in front of a house at 80 Great Oak Road. The defendant was inside the house breaking things and a toilet was seen hanging outside one of the windows. When the police entered the house the defendant was holding the refrigerator at a 45 degree angle and claimed he owned the house. The police set with the defendant in the dining room and was inquiring as to what was going on. During the conversation that lasted for about 15 minutes the defendant stood up, said he was “cocked” and threatened both officers, at which point he was arrested.

Issue 1 Whether the defendant was already in custody when he made the incriminating statements?

No. The court held that the trial court was correct in holding that the defendant was not in custody when he made the incriminating statements. The holding was based on four elements established in Commonwealth v. Groome and reinforced in Commonwealth v. Morse, namely 1) the place of interrogation 2) whether the officers made it clear to the defendant that he was a suspect 3) the formality and overall nature of the interrogation 4) whether the defendant had the possibility to end the interrogation by leaving or asking the police officers to leave. The court held that the place of interrogation was ‘wide open,’ the questions that officers asked were investigatory and not accusatory in nature, the defendant was not physically restrained and the interrogation was not coercive. Finally, a reasonable person in the defendant’s circumstances would have thought that he was able to leave whenever he wanted. Considering these findings the defendant was not in custody when the police officers questioned him.

Prepared by BH

Com. v. Lopes

Commonwealth v. Lopes
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
March 29, 2011
Docket No. SJC-10731

Self-incrimination, Breathalyzer test, Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence, Redaction

A jury found the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) and negligent operation of a motor vehicle on a public way. The defendant appealed his convictions claiming that the admission of the consent form for the breathalyzer test violated his privilege against self-incrimination as guaranteed by Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that the admission of the consent form was not prejudicial error, but because it was not relevant to any issue of fact for the jury, it would have been better practice for the judge to order that the form be redacted before it was admitted into evidence.

Com. v. Miller

Commonwealth v. Miller
Massachusetts Appeals Court
March 2, 2011
78 Mass.App.Ct. 860

Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Operating under the influence, Registration, Administrative Law, Regulations

The defendant was arrested after he was stopped per a Registry of Motor Vehicle (RMV) regulation that prohibited any portion of a Massachusetts license plate from being blocked by a frame. The defendant was subsequently charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, failure to properly display registration plates, and a safety standard violation for a cracked windshield. The District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence finding that the regulation upon which the trooper based his stop of the defendant exceeded the authority of the enabling statute. After a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court granted the Commonwealth’s motion for interlocutory appeal, the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Com v. McGillvary

Commonwealth v. McGillvary
January 25, 2011.
78 Mass.App.Ct. 644

Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence, Operation, Jury Instructions, Defendant's decision not to testify, Assistance of counsel, Prior conviction, Speedy trial

The defendant was convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), fourth offense.  On appeal, the defendant made several challenges.  First, he challenged whether he actually operated a motor vehicle, as required by G. L. c. 90 § 24.  Second, the defendant claimed that the Commonwealth did not present a sufficient amount of evidence to prove that he operated a motor vehicle or that the defendant had prior convictions.  Third, the defendant argued that the prosecutor’s representation of the evidence during his closing argument created a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice.  Fourth, the defendant contended that his right to testify was muzzled.  Fifth, the defendant claimed the judge abused his discretion by denying his motion to replace his attorney.  Lastly, the defendant argued that he was denied his right to a speedy trial.  The judgment was affirmed.