Com. v. Damiano
| Decision Date | 07 February 1996 |
| Citation | 660 N.E.2d 660,422 Mass. 10 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Thomas DAMIANO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Elspeth Cypher, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
John Higgins and Andrew S.A. Levine, Boston, for defendant.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, O'CONNOR, GREANEY and FRIED, JJ.
The Commonwealth appeals, pursuant to leave by a single justice of this court, from that portion of an order that allowed the suppression of certain statements that the defendant made to the police and of evidence derived from those statements. The defendant has been indicted for murder and other crimes allegedly arising from events that occurred in Fall River on October 1, 1993.
A Superior Court judge ruled that (1) the police failed to give the defendant Miranda warnings in circumstances in which Miranda warnings were required, (2) incriminating statements that the defendant made at that time had to be suppressed, and (3) later statements that the defendant made, after he had received Miranda warnings, were not free of the tainted earlier interrogation. The propriety of the judge's rulings depends on whether the defendant should have received Miranda warnings when a State trooper interrogated him in a police cruiser on Route 195. We agree with the judge that Miranda warnings should have been given before the questioning began and, therefore, affirm that portion of the order that is the subject of the Commonwealth's appeal.
About 12:30 A.M. on October 1, a State trooper was sent to a location on Route 195 in Fall River, where a man was lying in the center travel lane. The man, later identified as a Providence, Rhode Island, taxicab driver, was dead. The trooper remained at the scene investigating the incident. Bruce Tavares, a Fall River police officer, briefly assisted in directing traffic at the scene and then returned to his regular duties. Shortly thereafter, Tavares, sitting in a cruiser in a Store 24 parking lot and talking with police officers in another cruiser, saw the defendant, barefoot and wearing shorts, scaling a chain link fence. It was a cool night.
Tavares, on foot, approached the defendant who, unsteady on his feet, ran by Tavares. The defendant yelled that he wanted the Wareham police and that the Fall River police officers were not "real cops." The defendant ran into the middle of a main thoroughfare, and waving his arms, yelled, "Don't kill me." He also stated that he had been robbed and that a man had been seriously hurt on the highway.
After a brief struggle, the defendant was taken into custody, handcuffed, and placed in Tavares's cruiser. The defendant again screamed that he had been robbed. He said that he wanted to speak to the State police and that Tavares was involved in a plot to kill him. Tavares did not question the defendant, and the motion judge did not suppress the defendant's statements to Officer Tavares. Tavares took the defendant to the accident scene and explained to the State trooper the circumstances in which the defendant had been taken into custody. The State trooper approached the Fall River cruiser. The defendant asked the trooper not to kill him. The defendant then agreed to talk with the trooper. The trooper, who did not inform the defendant of his rights, put handcuffs on the defendant, placed him in the back of his cruiser, and then recorded their conversation, which we summarize from the judge's findings.
The defendant, who was still handcuffed, said that he had come to Providence by train where his brother was supposed to have met him, but did not. Outside the station he saw four men who he believed were going to rob him. He called his brother in Wareham who told him to speak with security people at the station, which he did. The defendant found a taxicab driver who would take him to Wareham. On the way, the driver made furtive gestures and tried to hit the "Jersey barriers." The driver jumped out of the cab, and the defendant drove the cab into Fall River. When asked why he had told Officer Tavares that he had been robbed, the defendant said that he had to tell the officers something because, "[T]hey're in on it too." The trooper then asked the defendant if he could identify the cab driver. The defendant identified the dead man in the highway as the cab driver. At this point, the trooper advised the defendant of his Miranda rights.
The defendant made further statements to the trooper, some of which were incriminating. The trooper took the defendant to the Fall River police station where, after he received Miranda warnings again, he made additional statements. The judge found that all the police questioning was continuous. The interview ended when the defendant asked to speak with a lawyer. Based on what the defendant had told them, the police found his duffel bag and suitcase in a school...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Cawthron
...is in custody is whether a reasonable person in the individual's position would feel free to leave." Id., citing Commonwealth v. Damiano, 422 Mass. 10, 13, 660 N.E.2d 660 (1996). While this may be a critical factor, today we clarify that it cannot be the determinative factor. Custody is "a ......
-
Commonwealth v. Thomas
...443 Mass. 597, 609, 823 N.E.2d 383 (2005), S.C., 450 Mass. 173, 877 N.E.2d 545 (2007), quoting Commonwealth v. Damiano, 422 Mass. 10, 13, 660 N.E.2d 660 (1996). When the defendant was taken from the court house to the police station for questioning, the defendant knew that a default warrant......
-
Commonwealth v. Simon
...individual is in custody is whether a reasonable person in the individual's position would feel free to leave. Commonwealth v. Damiano, 422 Mass. 10, 13, 660 N.E.2d 660 (1996), citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). In this case, the judge foun......
-
Commonwealth v. Baye
...is whether “a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have believed that he was in custody.” Commonwealth v. Damiano, 422 Mass. 10, 13, 660 N.E.2d 660 (1996), and cases cited. Here, whether the defendant was in custody when he invoked his right to counsel is an exceptionally clo......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Cheek , 413 Mass. 492 (1992), Forms 3-A, 4-A Commonwealth v. Couture , 407 Mass. 178 (1990), Form 3-B Commonwealth v. Damiano , 422 Mass. 10 (1996), Form 3-A Commonwealth v. D’Amour , 428 Mass. 725 (1999), Form 3-C Commonwealth v. Dickerson , 372 Mass. 783 (1977), Form 6-A Commonwealth v......
-
Cross-Examination of Arresting Officer: Motions to Suppress
...taken the Defendant into custody, the officers were obligated to advise the Defendant of his Miranda rights. Commonwealth vs. Damiano , 422 Mass. 10, 13 (1996). Nevertheless, the police neglected to advise the Defendant that he had the right to remain silent or that he had the right to an a......