Posts tagged "1111513"

Commonwealth v. Ortiz (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-115-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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       12‑P‑456                                                                              Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JASON ORTIZ.     No. 12‑P‑456. Essex.     December 7, 2012.  ‑  September 20, 2013. Present:  Cypher, Brown, & Cohen, JJ.     Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of confession.  Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement.     Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on May 28, 2010.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Gary V. Inge, J.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Robert J. Cordy, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by him to the Appeals Court.     Ronald DeRosa, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. James B. Krasnoo for the defendant.       COHEN, J.  The defendant stands indicted and is awaiting trial on charges of murder in the first degree (G. L. c. 265, § 1), armed robbery (G. L. c. 265, § 17), and carrying a dangerous weapon (G. L. c. 269, § 10), arising from the shooting of Luis Rodriguez at a party in Haverhill.  After an evidentiary hearing, a judge of the Superior Court allowed, in part, the defendant’s motion to suppress statements made during an interview with police.  Having obtained leave from a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, the Commonwealth brings this interlocutory appeal. Like the motion judge, we conclude that the nineteen year old defendant’s will was overborne by improper police interrogation tactics.  Those tactics included misrepresenting statements given by witnesses; informing the defendant that the interview was his “last chance” to tell his story; and assuring the defendant, who had been steadfast in denying that he had given the suspected shooter a gun, that he would not be culpable if the defendant had given the shooter the gun for a purpose other than to rob or kill the victim and that the shooter had acted like a “cowboy.”  However, unlike the motion judge, we further conclude that suppression is required of all statements made once the defendant’s will was overborne, and not merely selective statements pertaining to the gun. 1.  Standard of review.  The evidence before the motion judge consisted of the testimony of State Trooper Steven O’Connor at the motion hearing, the video recording of the defendant’s interview and a transcript thereof, and transcripts of […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 21, 2013 at 12:08 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,