Commonwealth v. Joseph Piard, 259 N.E.3d 399

Joseph Piard, a rideshare driver, was convicted of raping an intoxicated passenger after she became incapacitated during a ride home.
Evidence included DNA found in the victim, text messages, the victim’s hospital exam, statements from both the victim and Piard, and Piard’s confession after police interrogation.
Piard moved pretrial to suppress his statements to police and the buccal swab evidence; the motion was denied.
On appeal, Piard argued multiple grounds, chiefly focusing on whether he invoked his right to remain silent during police interrogation, and if statements and evidence should have been suppressed.
Piard did not raise the right-to-silence invocation in the suppression hearing, thus waiving the argument for direct appeal; the court suggested any remedy must be via ineffective assistance of counsel on postconviction motion.
Other issues raised included the voluntariness of his confession, exclusion of DNA evidence regarding other possible male DNA, and propriety of certain expert and prosecutorial statements at trial.

Issue	Piard’s Argument	Commonwealth’s Argument	Held
Did Piard’s statements to police (Aug 11/Sep 24) require suppression under Miranda?	He was subjected to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and statements were involuntary/coerced.	Interview was not custodial; Miranda waivers were given; no coercion; confession voluntary.	Interview was not custodial; Miranda warnings provided and waived; statements voluntary. Suppression denied.
Was the right to silence clearly invoked during interrogation?	He invoked his right to silence: "I can't answer any other questions…"	Argument waived on appeal as not raised below; statements ambiguous, not clear invocation.	Waived for direct appeal. Must be raised in motion for new trial as ineffective assistance.
Admission of SANE nurse testimony on loss of consciousness/expert opinion	Improper expert opinion invaded jury’s role; no objection at trial.	Nurse relayed victim’s statements for treatment purposes, not personal opinion.	No error; testimony properly admitted as treatment-based and not improper expert opinion.
Exclusion of evidence of other male DNA under rape shield	Excluding evidence hindered defense of consensual sex/alternate explanation.	DNA evidence of multiple contributors was irrelevant and prejudicial; main sample matched Piard.	No abuse of discretion; exclusion appropriate due to lack of probative value and high prejudice.

Commonwealth v. Groome, 435 Mass. 201 (Mass. 2001) (sets factors for determining custodial interrogation)
Commonwealth v. Hart, 493 Mass. 130 (Mass. 2023) (standard of review for suppression issues)
Commonwealth v. Dew, 478 Mass. 304 (Mass. 2017) (scope of appellate review for unpreserved claims/substantial risk)
Commonwealth v. Silva, 440 Mass. 772 (Mass. 2004) (waiver doctrine; issues not raised below)
Commonwealth v. Weidman, 485 Mass. 679 (Mass. 2020) (standard for unambiguous invocation of right to silence)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 486 Mass. 78 (Mass. 2020) (permissibility of police comments in interrogation)
Commonwealth v. Dargon, 457 Mass. 387 (Mass. 2010) (admissibility of statements made for medical treatment)
Commonwealth v. Gaynor, 443 Mass. 245 (Mass. 2005) (relevance of DNA evidence)
Commonwealth v. Carriere, 470 Mass. 1 (Mass. 2014) (permissibility of prosecutor's closing arguments)