Commonwealth v. Lajoie, 120 N.E.3d 352

Defendant William Lajoie was arrested and interviewed at the Fall River police station about alleged sexual intercourse with a minor that occurred 15 years earlier; the interview was audio‑video recorded and lasted ~31 minutes.
Before questioning, Detective Cordiero read a printed Miranda form the defendant signed; the form included: right to remain silent; anything said may be used at trial; “you have the right to an attorney”; if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed prior to any questioning; and you may stop answering at any time.
Defendant acknowledged understanding the warnings and waived his Miranda rights, then made inculpatory statements.
Defendant moved to suppress, arguing the warnings were defective because they did not explicitly state the right to have counsel present “during questioning” (omitted phrase: “the presence of”/“during questioning”).
The Superior Court allowed the suppression motion; the Commonwealth appealed. The Appeals Court reversed, holding the warnings adequate in their totality under Miranda and controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miranda warnings were fatally defective	Warnings were adequate; totality suffices	Warning omitted explicit language that counsel may be present “during questioning,” so not equivalent to Miranda	Warnings adequate in their totality; not required to mirror Miranda word‑for‑word
Whether phrase “prior to any questioning” is insufficient to convey right to counsel during interrogation	Phrase reasonably confirms right to counsel before and during questioning	“Prior to” does not explicitly include “during,” causing ambiguity	Phrase coupled with “you have the right to an attorney” conveyed right to counsel for before, during, and after questioning
Whether Massachusetts Declaration of Rights requires greater precision than federal Miranda	Federal standards control; Massachusetts has not required greater precision	Argues state constitutionally requires explicit “during questioning” language	Court declines to impose greater state standard; follows federal precedents
Whether suppression was warranted given officer conduct and waiver	Officer conduct was noncoercive; valid waiver obtained	Argues defective warning vitiates waiver regardless of conduct	No coercive conduct; valid waiver; statements should not have been suppressed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (summarizes warnings required before custodial interrogation)
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (Miranda warnings need not be given in precise, talismanic language)
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (warnings evaluated in their totality; equivalent formulations suffice)
Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (warnings that reasonably convey right to counsel before and during questioning are adequate)
Commonwealth v. Miranda, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 939 (prior state appellate decision finding inadequate warning when not considered in totality)
The Ngoc Tran, 471 Mass. 179 (Massachusetts court follows federal precedents on Miranda formulation)