Commonwealth v. Lavendier
947 N.E.2d 93
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor, third offense.
- Defendant challenged suppression of statements made to police prior to arrest and argued insufficiency of the evidence.
- Anonymous tip led police to a private residence at 80 Great Oak Road; a white pickup truck was observed with disturbance on the lawn and surrounding scene.
- Defendant was found near a damaged kitchen area with contraband (marijuana) present; interview lasted 10–15 minutes at a dining room table with officers present.
- Defendant admitted driving from Newport, Rhode Island and claimed not to have drunk since arriving; truck appeared recently operated with fresh tire tracks and burning scent.
- Court analyzed custody using four Groome factors and concluded defendant was not in custody; conviction for third-offense OUI affirmed, but malicious destruction of property reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the on-scene interrogation custodial for Miranda purposes? | Morse/Groome indicate custodial interrogation required. | Interrogation was custodial due to location and coercive atmosphere. | Not custodial; suppression denied. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to sustain the third-offense OUI conviction? | Statements plus intoxication indicators support guilt. | Admissions alone do not prove OUI beyond reasonable doubt. | Sufficient evidence to convict |
| Whether the conviction for malicious destruction of property should stand. | Evidence supports destruction of property. | Evidence insufficient for this specific conviction. | Conviction reversed; verdict set aside; judgment for defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Morse, 427 Mass. 117 (Mass. 1998) (Miranda warnings required only for custodial interrogation)
- Commonwealth v. Mello, 420 Mass. 375 (Mass. 1995) (Court may assess custody application of Groome factors)
- Commonwealth v. Groome, 435 Mass. 201 (Mass. 2001) (four-factor custody test for on-scene questioning)
- Commonwealth v. Simon, 456 Mass. 280 (Mass. 2010) (reasonable person standard for perceived custody; not free to terminate interview)
- Commonwealth v. Hilton, 443 Mass. 597 (Mass. 2005) (absence of transformational atmosphere; on-scene questioning permissible)