Posts tagged "1112517"

Commonwealth v. Tremblay (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-125-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   16-P-981                                        Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  RANDALL TREMBLAY.     No. 16-P-981.   Suffolk.     April 14, 2017. – September 25, 2017.   Present:  Trainor, Agnes, & Neyman, JJ.     Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Waiver of constitutional rights, Search and seizure.  Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Videotape, Intoxication.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Waiver, Findings by judge.  Waiver.  Intoxication.  Search and Seizure, Clothing.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 10, 2015.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Kenneth W. Salinger, J.   Applications for leave to prosecute interlocutory appeals were allowed by Geraldine S. Hines, J., and Robert J. Cordy, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeals were reported by them to the Appeals Court.     Zachary Hillman, Assistant District Attorney (Amy J. Galatis, Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the Commonwealth. Patrick Levin, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant.     AGNES, J.  The defendant, Randall Tremblay, was arrested and subsequently indicted for the murder of Stephanie McMahon, based on statements he made to the police both at the scene and in two subsequent custodial interrogations, and blood discovered on his clothing, which the police seized when they arrested him.  The defendant moved to suppress all statements he made to the police and all evidence seized from him.  The judge conducted an evidentiary hearing, during which he heard testimony from three police officers and viewed a videotape recording of the second custodial interrogation of the defendant following his arrest on a warrant for an unrelated offense.[1]  Based on the contents of that videotape recording, the judge concluded that the defendant was so intoxicated when he was questioned at the police station that he was incapable of making a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights.  As a result, the judge ruled that all of the statements made by the defendant at the police station must be suppressed.  The judge also ruled that while the police lawfully seized the defendant’s clothing in order to preserve evidence of an apparent homicide, they acted unlawfully in subjecting the clothing to forensic testing without first obtaining a search warrant.  Therefore, the judge made a further ruling that all forensic […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 25, 2017 at 4:49 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,