Posts tagged "1015813"

Commonwealth v. Walker (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-158-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us     SJC‑11157 COMMONWEALTH  vs.  STEVIE WALKER.     Suffolk.     April 5, 2013.  ‑  August 12, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.     Homicide.  Practice, Criminal, Arraignment, Instructions to jury, Motion to suppress, Objections to jury instructions, Voluntariness of statement, Admissions and confessions, Capital case.  Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Waiver of constitutional rights, Voluntariness of statement.  Waiver.  Mental Impairment. Intoxication.  Malice.     Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 29, 2005.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Frank M. Gaziano, J.; the case was tried before Christine M. McEvoy, J.     Elaine Pourinski for the defendant. Sarah H. Montgomery, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.       IRELAND, C.J.  On December 19, 2007, a jury convicted the defendant, Stevie Walker, of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty.[1]  Represented by new counsel on appeal, the defendant argues error in the denial of his motion to suppress statements and the instructions to the jury.  We affirm the order denying his suppression motion and affirm his conviction.  We discern no basis to exercise our authority pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E.   1.  Motion to suppress.  a.  Background and standard of review.  Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress statements he made on November 6, 2005, to police on his arrival at a Boston police station as well as during a tape recorded interview with homicide detectives shortly thereafter, claiming that all of his statements were obtained in violation of various State and Federal constitutional rights.  Specifically, as relevant here, the defendant argued that he had not knowingly, willingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights; his statements were not voluntarily made due to his impaired physical and mental condition; he did not knowingly, willingly, and intelligently waive his right to a prompt arraignment pursuant to Commonwealth v. Rosario, 422 Mass. 48, 56 (1996) (Rosario);[2] and police intentionally violated his statutory right pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 33A, to make a telephone call.  After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the motion judge, who was not the trial judge, rejected the defendant’s arguments and denied his motion with one exception not relevant here.[3]  “In reviewing a [decision] on a motion to suppress, we accept the judge’s subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error ‘but conduct […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 12, 2013 at 7:09 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,