Commonwealth v. Pearson (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-130-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-896 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. WASHINGTON PEARSON. No. 15-P-896. Norfolk. June 7, 2016. – September 20, 2016. Present: Cypher, Grainger, & Kinder, JJ. Arrest. Search and Seizure, Arrest, Securing of premises, Fruits of illegal arrest, Warrant, Affidavit. Evidence, Result of illegal arrest. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Warrant, Affidavit. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on April 12, 2012. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Kenneth J. Fishman, J., and the cases were tried before Raymond J. Brassard, J. Edward Crane for the defendant. Pamela Alford, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. CYPHER, J. A jury convicted the defendant, Washington Pearson, of four counts of breaking and entering in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 18, and four counts of larceny over $ 250 in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 30(1). On appeal, he argues that the motion judge erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant obtained following a warrantless arrest. We find no error by the motion judge. Following a pretrial hearing, the motion judge determined that warrants did not validly issue for the arrest of Jenell Johnson and the defendant in their apartment and, consequently, he allowed their motions to suppress statements made at the time of the arrests.[1],[2] He concluded, however, that evidence seized pursuant to the subsequently secured search warrant was untainted by the initial illegality and therefore admissible. The defendant claims that his motion to suppress should have been allowed in full because the search warrant was tainted by his prior unlawful arrest, and therefore could not constitute a genuinely independent source for the challenged evidence. “In reviewing a decision on a motion to suppress, ‘we accept the judge’s subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error but conduct an independent review of his ultimate findings and conclusions of law.’” Commonwealth v. Keefner, 461 Mass. 507, 515 (2012), quoting from Commonwealth v. Scott, 440 Mass. 642, 646 (2004). “We make an independent determination of the correctness of the judge’s application of constitutional principles.” Commonwealth v. Cassino, 474 Mass. 85, 88 (2016) (quotation omitted). We recite the facts found by the motion judge after an evidentiary hearing, and supplement where necessary with undisputed testimony implicitly credited by the judge. Commonwealth v. Oliveira, 474 […]
Commonwealth v. Pearson (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-088-15)
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 13-P-1649 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. PETER PEARSON. No. 13-P-1649. Plymouth. November 3, 2014. – August 4, 2015. Present: Green, Wolohojian, & Blake, JJ. Rape. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Severance. Identification. Constitutional Law, Identification, Search and seizure. Due Process of Law, Identification. Evidence, Identification, First complaint. Search and Seizure, Automobile, Consent, Inevitable discovery, Inventory. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 21, 2008. A motion to sever was heard by Joseph M. Walker, III, J., motions to suppress evidence were heard by Richard J. Chin, J., and the cases were tried before Frank M. Gaziano, J. R. Bradford Bailey for the defendant. Mary E. Lee, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. GREEN, J. On appeal from his convictions of five counts of aggravated rape, and related charges,[1] the defendant claims error in (i) the denial of his motion to suppress out-of-court identifications made by one of his victims in a one-on-one showup, and by his other victims from photographic arrays; (ii) the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of the trunk of his car; (iii) the admission of testimony regarding a first complaint made by one of his victims; and (iv) the denial of his motion to sever the various charges for trial. We affirm. Background. We summarize the findings of fact made by the motion judge in his thorough written memorandum of decision on the defendant’s motions to suppress.[2] On July 1, 2008, Brockton police arrested Stephanie Smith[3] for being a common night walker. See G. L. c. 272, § 53; Thomes v. Commonwealth, 355 Mass. 203, 207 (1969). The following day, Smith reported to Officer Amaral of the Brockton police department that she had been raped by a State Trooper. Later, in a statement she gave to Brockton police Detective Erin Cummings, she elaborated that about one week earlier she had gotten into a small silver four-door vehicle in the area of Haverhill Street, driven by a man who took her to D.W. Field Park and forced her at gunpoint to perform oral sex on him. The man (whom she described as approximately five feet, four inches tall, with bright blue eyes and grayish hair) told her he was a State Trooper, showed her a badge, and had a hand-held radio […]