Commonwealth v. Letkowski (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-088-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 11‑P‑928 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. MIKOLAJ K. LETKOWSKI. No. 11‑P‑928. Hampden. December 11, 2012. ‑ July 1, 2013. Present: Kantrowitz, Katzmann, & Hanlon, JJ. Kidnapping. Rape. Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Robbery. Intimidation of Witness. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Confrontation of witnesses. Search and Seizure, Automobile. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Confrontation of witnesses, Duplicative convictions. Evidence, Admission by silence, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, First complaint, Expert opinion. Consent. Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Witness, Expert. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 8, 2006. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Peter A. Velis, J., and the cases were tried before Daniel A. Ford, J. Charles W. Rankin for the defendant. Bethany C. Lynch, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. HANLON, J. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, armed robbery, aggravated rape,[1] assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, a belt, and witness intimidation. He appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence and a postarrest statement. He also argues that (1) his conviction should be reversed because the prosecutor improperly used his exercise of Miranda rights against him; (2) the erroneous admission of first complaint evidence created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice; (3) the admission of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence violated his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (4) some charges were “impermissibly duplicative.” Motion to suppress. After a hearing, the motion judge, in a detailed and thoughtful memorandum, found the following facts. Early in the morning on April 18, 2006, a Springfield college student reported to the police that, on the previous evening, an attacker, wearing a black ski mask and armed with a knife, had forced her into her car in a college parking lot. She said that he had driven her to another location where he robbed and sexually assaulted her. He then drove her back to the parking lot and fled. Later in the morning on the same day, the Longmeadow police received a 911 call reporting a suspicious person leaving a home “in a silver Chrysler PT Cruiser.” Shortly afterwards, a […]