Com. v. MacNeill
Decision Date | 16 January 1987 |
Citation | 399 Mass. 71,502 N.E.2d 938 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. George Christopher MacNEILL. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Peter D. Feeherry, Boston, for the defendant.
Lila Heideman, Asst. Dist. Atty. (George M. O'Connor, Asst. Dist. Atty., with her) for the Com.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, LIACOS, ABRAMS and O'CONNOR, JJ.
In this appeal from a conviction of murder in the first degree, the defendant argues that the denial of his motion to suppress his signed confession to the police, made in the presence of the defendant's grandfather when the defendant was sixteen years old, was error. The defendant also seeks relief under G.L. c. 278, § 33E (1984 ed.). We affirm the conviction.
The challenged confession is contained in a report prepared by Lieutenant Alfred Duemling of the State police. The report is signed by the defendant and his grandfather, and by Duemling and Lynn police Lieutenant Joseph Coppinger as witnesses. The contents of the confession bear on the question whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights protected by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution before making the confession. Furthermore, because we answer that question in the affirmative, the confession is relevant to our consideration of the entire case under G.L. c. 278, § 33E, to see whether justice requires a change in the verdict. Commonwealth v. Vanderpool, 367 Mass. 743, 749, 328 N.E.2d 833 (1975). According to the report, the defendant initially denied that he had killed Bonnie Mitchell, the victim. He accounted for his whereabouts during the relevant time period in considerable detail. The report then states that the police told the defendant in the presence of his grandfather that the defendant was not telling the truth, and that several people had told the police that the defendant had shown them the victim's body and had told them that he had killed her. The rest of the report is as follows: "We asked him to stop lying and tell us the truth. He then stated, 'Yes, I killed her, I told her to stay out of my life but she wouldn't.' 'She had other girls beat up my girl.' 'Sunday I thought about killing her and I thought of strangling her with a rope.'
As further background, especially in connection with our duty to determine whether the conviction ought to be reduced, we note that, at trial, several Commonwealth witnesses essentially corroborated, and also supplemented, the defendant's confession. The witnesses testified that on the day of the killing and on the previous day the defendant told his friends that he intended to kill Mitchell, his former girl friend, because she had threatened his current girl friend whom he believed to be pregnant.
The defendant testified at the trial. He denied that he had killed Mitchell. He said that another person killed her in his presence, and that that person threatened him with a gun and told him to say that he, the defendant, had killed Mitchell. The defendant testified that, later, Mitchell's killer told him that he would kill the defendant's current girl friend if the defendant did not confess to Mitchell's killing.
We now specifically turn our attention to the motion to suppress the confession. The defendant's contention is that the Commonwealth has failed to sustain its heavy burden of showing that he waived his Fifth Amendment rights voluntarily with an understanding of their nature and the possible consequences of waiving them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Commonwealth v. Cameron, 385 Mass. 660, 664, 433 N.E.2d 878 (1982). Commonwealth v. Garcia, 379 Mass. 422, 428-431, 399 N.E.2d 460 (1980). "Special caution, of course, must be exercised in examining the validity of inculpatory statements made by juveniles." Commonwealth v. King, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 602, 609, 460 N.E.2d 1299 (1984). Commonwealth v. Cain, 361 Mass. 224, 228, 279 N.E.2d 706 (1972).
The judge found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. At approximately 9:35 P.M. on October 19, 1981, Lynn police officers met the defendant and his grandfather at the building where the grandfather lived. 1 The police and the grandfather made an unsuccessful effort to find the defendant's mother. At around 10 P.M. on the same night, Lieutenant Alfred Duemling of the State police went to the grandfather's apartment and told the defendant and the grandparents that his visit concerned the death of Mitchell. Duemling noticed nothing wrong with the grandfather's speech or behavior. The defendant and his grandfather were asked to go to the police station. They went there in a police cruiser, and at 10:30 P.M. Duemling, Lieutenant Coppinger, the defendant, and the defendant's grandfather went into a small room containing a table and four chairs. The door was closed.
The judge found that Duemling told the defendant and his grandfather that he was investigating Mitchell's death and that he had heard that the defendant was involved. Duemling then read the Miranda warnings to the defendant and the grandfather. After being asked if he understood his rights, the defendant replied that he did and that he wanted to talk to the police. The grandfather also responded that the defendant could talk to the police. The defendant and the defendant's grandfather read the Miranda card and signed it. The defendant, the judge found, "then gave a cogent and detailed statement" denying any involvement with Mitchell's death, but, when Duemling told the defendant to stop lying, the defendant stated that he did kill her "and went on with a detailed explanation of why and how he killed her." When the confession was completed, the defendant and the grandfather signed it, as did the officers as witnesses. The interrogation lasted one hour, during which the defendant was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He had been given a soft drink during the interrogation, and he remained unemotional and "exhibited no unusual signs" during that time. At 11:45 P.M. the defendant telephoned his mother.
The judge found that the defendant was born on February 17, 1965 (making him sixteen years and eight months old at the time of the incident), that he had gone no further in school than completion of the eighth grade, and that he left school because the teachers were not giving him enough work (the defendant had so testified). The judge also found that the defendant had never before been arrested or been in a police station, and that, while being held awaiting trial, the defendant "pretended to be attempting to commit suicide in order to be transferred to Bridgewater where he sought to study law books." The judge further reported that he had ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Berry
...findings in the absence of clear error. Commonwealth v. Frazier, 410 Mass. 235, 239, 571 N.E.2d 1356 (1991). Commonwealth v. MacNeill, 399 Mass. 71, 76, 502 N.E.2d 938 (1987), citing Commonwealth v. Corriveau, 396 Mass. 319, 326, 486 N.E.2d 29 (1985). In addition, we give substantial defere......
-
Novak v. Com.
...the confession and evidences the conclusion that the officer was attempting to overcome Novak's free will. See Commonwealth v. MacNeill, 399 Mass. 71, 502 N.E.2d 938, 942 (1987) ("[D]eliberate police avoidance of a parent's participation in an exchange between the police and a juvenile ... ......
-
Com. v. Guthrie G.
...has understood his rights and the potential consequences of waiving them before talking to the police." Commonwealth v. MacNeill, 399 Mass. 71, 79, 502 N.E.2d 938 (1987). "The `genuine opportunity' for consultation that our cases envision is not merely a theoretical opportunity, that the ju......
-
Commonwealth v. Ray
...is knowing and intelligent.” Commonwealth v. Alfonso A., 438 Mass. 372, 380, 780 N.E.2d 1244 (2003), quoting Commonwealth v. MacNeill, 399 Mass. 71, 78, 502 N.E.2d 938 (1987), and Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 389 Mass. 128, 134, 449 N.E.2d 654 (1983). See Commonwealth v. Trombley, 72 Mass.Ap......