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. Hadley

Commonwealth v. Dennis Hadley
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
December 8, 2010
Docket No. 09-P-1177

Motion to Suppress, Voluntariness of statement, Miranda waiver, Involuntary manslaughter, battery


A jury in the Superior Court found the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter by battery.  Defendant appeals the verdict on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and the judge wrongly refused to suppress two separate sets of statements: oral and written statements made shortly after the battery and oral statements made two years after the incident.