Commonwealth v. Bigley (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-071-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑539 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. RONNIE R. BIGLEY. No. 13‑P‑539. Plymouth. April 7, 2014. ‑ June 24, 2014. Present: Kantrowitz, Agnes, & Hines, JJ. Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Findings by judge, Waiver, Voluntariness of statement, Confrontation of witnesses. Constitutional Law, Waiver of constitutional rights, Voluntariness of statement, Confrontation of witnesses. Evidence, Voluntariness of statement, Business record, Intoxication. Intoxication. Waiver. Complaint received and sworn to in the Brockton Division of the District Court Department on September 27, 2010. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Mary L. Amrhein, J., and the case was tried before Paul J. McCallum, J. Maurice A. Reidy, III, for the defendant. Stacey L. Gauthier, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. AGNES, J. The defendant, Ronnie R. Bigley, after a trial by jury, was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and, following a second jury-waived trial pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 11A, was found guilty on the second or subsequent offense portion of the complaint charging that he was a fourth offender in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1). The defendant also was convicted on a count charging him with burning a motor vehicle, in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 5. The principal issue on appeal is the admissibility of statements made by the defendant to Bridgewater police officers and a Bridgewater fire department arson investigator. The defendant maintains that he was so intoxicated and highly emotional that he was incapable of waiving his Miranda rights as a matter of law based on the reasoning in Commonwealth v. Hosey, 368 Mass. 571 (1975) (Hosey), and that the judge erred in not suppressing his statements. As we explain below, this argument is based on a misreading of Hosey. Regrettably, the judge did not make subsidiary findings of fact. However, the facts necessary to decide the legal questions involved appear with sufficient clarity to permit review without the need to remand the case for preparation of findings of fact. Accordingly, we affirm. Background. These facts are drawn from the testimony of Bridgewater police Officers Silvia and Gray, and Bridgewater fire department Deputy Chief Levy, the three witnesses who testified at the hearing on the pretrial motion to suppress. In the early morning hours of September […]