Posts tagged "1010415"

Commonwealth v. Libby (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-104-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   SJC-11749   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JEREMY LIBBY.       Suffolk.     February 4, 2015. – June 26, 2015. Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Waiver of constitutional rights.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Waiver.  Waiver.  Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 31, 2012.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Mary-Lou Rup, J.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Lenk, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by her.     Jane Davidson Montori, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Marissa Elkins for the defendant.     CORDY, J.  The Commonwealth appeals from the ruling of a Superior Court judge suppressing statements made to police officers by the defendant during the course of two interviews:  the first being prearrest and the second following his arrest.  The defendant was advised of the Miranda rights at the commencement of both interviews, but, in various ways, those rights were not accurately explained.  Among other things, we are required to consider the effect of the inaccurate explanation of those rights in a noncustodial setting on the   voluntariness of statements made thereafter, and on the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of those rights in a subsequent custodial interrogation.  We reverse the judge’s ruling suppressing the prearrest statement, and affirm her ruling suppressing the postarrest statement. Background.  On June 27, 2012, members of the Palmer police department received a complaint regarding the sexual abuse of K.C., a six year old girl who resided in the home where the defendant was living.  Shortly after police arrived at the home, the defendant voluntarily[1] accompanied them to the Palmer police station to discuss an allegation that he had inappropriately touched K.C.  Sergeant Scott Haley was the only officer present during this conversation, and he began the interview by reading the defendant the Miranda rights.  Haley then asked the defendant whether, with those rights in mind, the defendant was willing to talk “about these matters of concern.”  After a somewhat lengthy colloquy regarding the appointment of counsel and whether the defendant was under arrest, discussed infra, the defendant signed a Miranda […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 26, 2015 at 4:58 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,