Commonwealth v. Fortunato
466 Mass. 500
Mass.2013Background
- Defendant arrested in Massachusetts at 4:10 p.m. for a February 2008 bank robbery; transported to the Reading police station and booked; Miranda warnings given at booking (~6:00 p.m.).
- Detectives previously interviewed the defendant in New York (Nov. 17) after showing bank security photos; defendant said he would speak when back in Massachusetts.
- At ~10:30 p.m. (more than six hours after arrest) the defendant asked to speak to Detective Saunders in his cell; Saunders did not reissue Miranda or advise of the right to prompt arraignment or obtain a waiver.
- The parties dispute whether the 10:30 p.m. exchange consisted of spontaneous volunteered remarks or was part of ongoing police questioning/interrogation.
- Motion judge suppressed the November 19 statements under Commonwealth v. Rosario (six-hour rule); Commonwealth appealed. Court of Appeals transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court.
- SJC: held the entire 10:30 p.m. exchange was part of a continuing episode of police questioning and therefore barred by the Rosario six-hour rule absent a waiver; suppression affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rosario’s six-hour rule applies to the November 19 statements | Statements were spontaneous/unsolicited and therefore outside Rosario | Statements were produced by police questioning and fall within Rosario | Held: Statements were part of continuing police questioning and subject to Rosario; suppressed |
| Scope of “police questioning” under Rosario — does initiated conversation by arrestee remove Rosario’s protection? | Rosario should not bar volunteered remarks even after six hours | Rosario protects statements that are the product of police questioning; context can make volunteered remarks part of questioning | Held: Context (prior interrogation same day, same detective, defendant requested interview) made the exchange part of a single episode of police questioning |
| Whether Rosario’s prophylactic rule aims only to limit coercive questioning or has broader presentment protections | Rosario’s purpose is to deter police coercion; excludes only interrogation-based statements | Rosario also protects prompt presentment, right to counsel, and prevention of unlawful detention — broader than coercion alone | Held: Rosario serves broader aims (prompt presentment, counsel, unlawful detention) and applies to police questioning statements |
| Whether Rosario requires a waiver for post-six-hour questioning to admit statements | Commonwealth analogizes to federal § 3501(d) exceptions for spontaneous statements | No Massachusetts statutory equivalent to § 3501(d); waiver required for questioning after six hours | Held: Because no Rosario waiver was obtained, and statements were within police questioning, they were inadmissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rosario, 422 Mass. 48 (establishing six-hour rule for police questioning of arrested persons)
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 423 Mass. 517 (explaining purposes of prompt presentment: counsel, charges, and unlawful detention)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation and warnings)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (defining interrogation and its functional equivalent)
- McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (early prompt-presentment doctrine)
- Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (discussing delay and inadmissibility of confessions)
- United States v. Colon, 835 F.2d 27 (2d Cir.) (spontaneous statements not product of interrogation under federal § 3501)
- United States v. Fullwood, 86 F.3d 27 (2d Cir.) (post-arrest volunteered statements held outside § 3501 suppression in certain facts)
- Commonwealth v. Siny Van Tran, 460 Mass. 535 (discussing Rosario as prophylactic rule and tolling circumstances)