Commonwealth v. Gonzalez
| Decision Date | 16 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | SJC-12936 |
| Citation | 487 Mass. 661,169 N.E.3d 485 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Edward GONZALEZ. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Katherine E. McMahon, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Marissa Elkins, Amherst, for the defendant.
Present: Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ.
The defendant was arrested on charges of murder in the first degree, G. L. c. 269, § 1 ; and possession of a firearm without a license, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a ). Police interviewed him in an interrogation room at the Springfield police department shortly after he was arrested. Although the defendant initially agreed to waive his Miranda rights and speak with police, approximately twenty minutes after the interview began, he requested to speak with an attorney and the interview was terminated. Following a period of forty-five minutes during which the defendant remained in the interrogation room with one of the officers who had been conducting the interview, the defendant again waived his Miranda rights and agreed to speak with police; he was interviewed again for approximately one hour. The defendant subsequently sought to suppress all of the statements he made after having invoked his right to counsel. A Superior Court judge allowed the motion to suppress after concluding that the Commonwealth had not established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant reinitiated the interview and knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Deferring to the judge's findings of fact and credibility determinations, we affirm the decision allowing the motion to suppress.
1. Factual background. We summarize the relevant facts from the judge's findings following a three-day evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress, supplemented by other undisputed evidence introduced at the hearing that is not contrary to the judge's findings. See Commonwealth v. Alexis, 481 Mass. 91, 93, 112 N.E.3d 796 (2018), citing Commonwealth v. Jones-Pannell, 472 Mass. 429, 431, 35 N.E.3d 357 (2015).
The defendant was arrested on May 26, 2016, in connection with a backyard shooting that had taken place in Springfield in January of that year. The victim was the father of a State police trooper, and the case became "high profile." The day before the defendant's arrest, a codefendant, who had been identified through deoxyribonucleic acid testing of evidence found at the scene, had been arrested in Holyoke; when interviewed over a period of four to five hours, he pointed to the defendant as also having been involved in the shooting. Several officers of the Springfield police department, including the captain of the major crimes unit and two of the detectives who later interviewed the defendant, were present in Holyoke and watched the interrogation of the codefendant. On the basis of that interview, Springfield police Captain Trent Duda obtained a warrant for the defendant's arrest. The defendant was arrested at 12:30 A.M. on May 26, and brought to the Holyoke police station, where he underwent a "courtesy" booking and was given Miranda warnings; about forty-five minutes later, he was transported to Springfield police headquarters.
Because the defendant's primary language was Spanish, Duda assigned a Spanish-speaking detective, Jose Canini, who had watched the interview of the codefendant, and Sergeant Jeffrey Martucci, the most senior officer on duty apart from Duda, to interview the defendant. The interview began at 1:52 A.M. on May 26, 2016, and was audio-video recorded. Martucci advised the defendant that he was under arrest for murder and had the defendant read the Miranda1 warnings in English; Martucci testified that he did so after the defendant had told the officers that he could understand, read, and speak English. The defendant waived his rights, signed the waiver form, and agreed to speak with the officers. While most of this interview was conducted in English, the defendant's speech and his responses to certain questions indicated some difficulty comprehending English, and more comfort speaking in Spanish. Certain questions were posed by Canini in Spanish, and the defendant sometimes answered in the same language.2
During this interview, the defendant denied any involvement in the shooting. In response to Martucci's and Canini's repeated assertions that someone had placed the defendant at the scene, the defendant asked the officers who had done so and requested to see any photographs, video recordings, or other incriminating evidence showing that he had been there. Approximately fifteen minutes into the interview, Duda, who had been monitoring the interrogation through a live audio-video feed, became frustrated and felt that the interview was "going off the rails" because the defendant was asking more questions than he was answering. Duda entered the interrogation room and began yelling and swearing at the defendant. Among other things, Duda said that the defendant might be a "big tough guy" in Holyoke but he "ain't shit" in Springfield, and there were many "enemies" in jail. Duda told the defendant, 3 According to the transcript, the defendant responded, "No, I ain't speaking." Duda then left the room and the interrogation continued, with Canini and Martucci placing increased pressure on the defendant to explain his involvement in the shooting, using profanity and telling him it was over and he was going to jail, while the defendant asked, "Why -- why are you yelling at me?"
A few moments after Duda walked out, the defendant asked, in Spanish, "Can I call my lawyer?" Canini initially responded, in Spanish, The defendant again asked in Spanish, "Can I call my lawyer?" The following exchange then took place:
The judge found that the defendant said that he wanted his attorney four times before the interview was terminated. The judge noted that it was clear from Canini's words and tone that he was frustrated and angry that the defendant had asked for counsel.
Martucci left the room, and Canini remained alone with the defendant in the interview room, waiting to be told to bring the defendant to booking. All four of the officers involved in the interviews testified that the process for booking a defendant who had been arrested for murder differed from other bookings, and that a supervisor -- that night, either Duda or Martucci -- would call the booking sergeant to arrange a time to bring such a defendant down to the first floor for booking, something detectives could do only with a supervisor's authorization. Although defendants arrested for murder sometimes would be brought a telephone in the interview room, ordinarily they would be given the opportunity to make a telephone call when they reached the booking area. While waiting to go to booking, a defendant who had been arrested for murder would not be left alone.
None of the interrogating officers testified as to the identity of the officer who had been in charge of the booking area at the time, or which officer ultimately called to have the defendant brought down to the first floor for booking, nor could they explain the reasons for the delay in bringing the defendant to be booked. Duda testified that he "assumed" that Martucci had called the booking supervisor,4 and did not know the reason for the delay in bringing the defendant down to be booked. Martucci testified that he did not remember if he had called the booking supervisor.
At the evidentiary hearing, Canini said that, while waiting to be brought to booking, the defendant asked to use the bathroom and Canini escorted him, handcuffed, to the bathroom, which was down the hall on the second floor. Canini and the defendant encountered Duda in the hallway; Duda testified that they did not speak. Canini then brought the defendant back to the interrogation room and engaged in conversation. Canini could not recall any of the topics they discussed, although he stated that the conversation involved "some general talk, but not about what was going on," and that the defendant "did not say anything of evidentiary significance." Canini did remember, Canini also testified that the defendant asked what would happen next and Canini explained the booking process, stating that The defendant later told Canini that he would "talk to him but, did not want to get yelled at." Canini did not prepare a report memorializing this conversation, nor was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Bright
...of the weight and credibility of testimonial evidence includes inferences ‘derived reasonably from the testimony.’ " Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 487 Mass. 661, 668 (2021), quoting Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 426 Mass. 703, 708 (1998). We will not conduct our own "independent fact finding ... to ......
-
Commonwealth v. Garcia
...the patfrisk. We summarize the judge's findings of fact, supplemented by the Trooper's uncontested testimony. See Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 487 Mass. 661, 662 (2021).At about 6 P.M. on November 12, 2018, Trooper Phillips was in a marked cruiser watching traffic from the parking lot of the f......
-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CONCEALING IDENTITY TO RECORD IS NOT AN INTERCEPTION UNDER MASSACHUSETTS WIRETAP STATUTE - CURTATONE V. BARSTOOL SPORTS, INC., 169 N.E.3D 480 (MASS. 2021).
...the Wiretap Statute analysis, Curtatone had a diminished right to privacy in the conversation due to his role as mayor. Curtatone, 169 N.E.3d at 485. The majority also noted that the ordinary meaning of the word "secret," alongside the "legal context," rendered Minihane's actions outside th......