35 N.E.3d 412
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant's 2000 blood sample was unlawfully seized because the statute then allowed DNA collection only for a limited set of offenses; his convictions in 1998 (civil rights with injury) were not among them.
- Legislature broadened G. L. c. 22E, § 3 in 2004 to require DNA from anyone convicted of offenses punishable by state prison and from certain persons on probation; by 2004 the defendant fell within the statute due to an unrelated unarmed robbery conviction and probation.
- In 2006 forensic evidence from unsolved burglaries produced a CODIS match to the defendant's DNA record (which derived from the 2000 sample), leading to charges and the defendant's custody.
- In 2007 police obtained a fresh blood sample from the defendant while he was in custody; that 2007 DNA confirmed the prior CODIS match and is the evidence the Commonwealth seeks to use at trial.
- Defendant moved to suppress the 2007 DNA as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" from the 2000 unlawful seizure; the motion judge allowed suppression. The Commonwealth appealed interlocutorily.
- The Appeals Court reversed suppression, finding attenuation of the taint based on intervening statutory changes, passage of time, and absence of purposeful police misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars suppression in Middlesex because defendant pleaded guilty in Bristol and did not suppress evidence there | Commonwealth: defendant had opportunity previously so should be precluded | Lunden: did not litigate suppression in Bristol; no prior adjudication on suppression | Held: Collateral estoppel does not apply; Bristol conviction did not produce a judgment on the suppression issue |
| Whether 2007 DNA is admissible or should be suppressed as fruit of 2000 unlawful seizure | Commonwealth: connection attenuated by later lawful statutory changes, intervening events, and time; exclusion would not further deterrence | Lunden: 2007 DNA is derivative of 2000 unlawful seizure and must be suppressed | Held: 2007 DNA admissible under attenuation doctrine; exclusionary rule inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Benoit, 382 Mass. 210 (discussion of fruits doctrine and statutory DNA collection)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree/attenuation principle)
- Commonwealth v. Damiano, 444 Mass. 444 (2005) (attenuation not a simple but-for test)
- Commonwealth v. Fredette, 396 Mass. 455 (1985) (attenuation factors: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, purpose/flagrancy)
- Commonwealth v. Ringuette, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 351 (2004) (collateral estoppel requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Guy, 454 Mass. 440 (2009) (use of DNA/CODIS evidence)