Posts tagged "1100317"

Commonwealth v. Cawthron (and three companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-003-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   15-P-1751                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  KEITH CAWTHRON (and three companion cases[1]).     No. 15-P-1751.   Middlesex.     November 10, 2016. – January 6, 2017.   Present:  Trainor, Meade, & Hanlon, JJ.     Controlled Substances.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Admissions and confessions.  Evidence, Admissions and confessions.  Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Investigatory stop.  Due Process of Law, Police custody.     Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on April 24, 2014.   Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by Kenneth W. Salinger, J., and a motion for reconsideration was considered by him.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Margot Botsford, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by her to the Appeals Court.     Timothy Ferriter, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Thomas M. Glynn for Keith M. Cawthron. Daniel E. Callahan, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Craig Flodstrom.   MEADE, J.  A Middlesex County grand jury indicted the defendant, Keith M. Cawthron, and the codefendant, Craig Flodstrom, for trafficking in an amount more than eighteen and less than thirty-six grams of oxycodone, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32E(c)(1), and conspiracy to traffic oxycodone, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 40.  Prior to trial, the defendants moved to suppress the oxycodone and statements they made at the time they were stopped by the police.  After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the motion judge issued findings and an order that allowed Cawthron’s motion to suppress in full, and allowed Flodstrom’s motion to suppress in part and denied it in part.[2]  The Commonwealth timely noticed an appeal, and a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court allowed the Commonwealth’s application for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal and reported the matter to this court.  See G. L. c. 278, § 28E; Mass.R.Crim.P. 15(a)(2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996). This appeal presents the question whether the conduct of the police officers, during the course of an investigatory stop, elevated that stop to one of custodial interrogation requiring the recitation of Miranda rights.  The motion judge determined that it did.  We reverse. Background.  Detective Michael Donovan and Detective Lieutenant Ryan Columbus of the Tewksbury police department testified at the motion hearing.[3]  The motion judge made detailed findings of fact to support his order, as […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,