 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Ramirez6/14/2002
Hampden.
February 6, 2002
Arrest. Constitutional Law, Arrest, Admissions and confessions. Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Hearsay, Cumulative evidence. Practice, Criminal , Argument by prosecutor. Joint Enterprise.
The defendant appeals from his conviction for trafficking in cocaine as a joint venturer (and the subsequent denial of his motion for a new trial), claiming as errors (i) the denial of his motion to suppress his statement to the police, i.e., giving them a false name, before he had received Miranda warnings; (ii) the admission in evidence of various business cards and other material containing hearsay information; (iii) improper closing argument by the Commonwealth; (iv) insufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction as a joint venturer; and (v) the lack of a specific unanimity instruction. Though we agree that the business cards should not have been allowed in evidence, we conclude that the error was not prejudicial. Since we find no merit in the defendant's other claims of error, we affirm the conviction and the order denying the motion for a new trial.
We summarize the facts that the jury could have found, supplementing the summary as necessary incident to our discussion of each of the defendant's claims.
On May 14, 1998, acting on a tip from an informant, undercover police officers completed a controlled purchase of cocaine from Daniel Rodriguez. By prior arrangement, Rodriguez brought a sample of the drug to an apartment occupied by one of the officers for the officer's inspection. Rodriguez then left the apartment and, after the officer later communicated his desire to proceed with the purchase, returned with eleven ounces of cocaine. The officer delivered $10,000 to Rodriguez, which Rodriguez divided, placing $2,000 in his wallet and $8,000 in his pocket. As Rodriguez left the apartment, the officer radioed other police officers to advise them that the sale was complete; Rodriguez was arrested in the corridor outside the apartment.
On both of Rodriguez's visits to the apartment, he arrived in a tan Toyota automobile driven by the defendant. After dropping Rodriguez off in front of the apartment building, the defendant parked the car, went into the lobby of the building, and waited for Rodriguez. On the radio advice that the sale was complete, an officer arrested the defendant in the lobby.
1. Motion to suppress. At the time of his arrest, the defendant was asked his name and responded, falsely, "George Lassu." The officer responded that he knew that the defendant was lying. The defendant contends that his response should have been suppressed, as he had not been given Miranda warnings before he was asked his name.
The request for an arrestee's name generally does not require a Miranda warning because it "fall within a 'routine booking question' exception which exempts from Miranda's coverage questions to secure the 'biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services.'" Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601 (1990). The "routine booking question" exception does not extend, however, to questions designed to elicit an inculpatory response. See Commonwealth v. Woods, 419 Mass. 366, 373 (1995), citing Muniz, 496 U.S. at 602 n.14. See also Commonwealth v. Sheriff, 425 Mass. 186, 199 (1997) (ordering hearing incident to new trial to assess whether questions asked for purpose of ascertaining whether defendant could understand Miranda warnings were designed to elicit incriminating response).
The defendant argues that, because the police knew he had given a false name on a previous occasion, they may well have intended to elicit a false response on the
Page 1 2 3 4 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|