Commonwealth v. Melo
472 Mass. 278
| Mass. | 2015Background
- Victim Chad Fleming traveled from Florida to Massachusetts on Nov. 3, 2009 to sell Percocet to defendant Nelson Melo; he was later found dead of asphyxia by strangulation. Melo and Aaron Morin were tried separately; Melo convicted of first‑degree (felony‑murder) by a jury in 2012.
- Witness evidence: Melo's wife (immunized) testified Melo packaged large cash, directed Fleming to meet at a different apartment, and Melo left wearing a black hat with money; other witnesses heard commotion upstairs and observed blood, zip ties, and Fleming later in the defendant’s rental car. Matteson testified Morin had described a plan to rob the supplier at an apartment owned by Melo.
- At Morton Hospital Melo gave officers various accounts (initially that Fleming was found outside bleeding; later that three men with guns had assaulted Fleming). Police questioned Melo in the hospital without Miranda warnings, then told him they would continue at the station and transported him involuntarily to the station (locked cruiser), where he signed a Miranda form and underwent a recorded interview lasting ~2 hours 45 minutes.
- Motion judge suppressed only the portion of the stationhouse interview after the point she found Melo’s exhaustion and coercive conduct rendered statements involuntary; she found (a) Melo was not in Miranda custody while at hospital but was in custody when directed to the station, (b) his Miranda waiver was valid, and (c) his mid‑interview ambiguous comment about wanting a lawyer was not an unambiguous invocation.
- On appeal Melo argued (1) additional suppression required because his involuntary transport to the station was an unlawful arrest (no probable cause), making station statements fruit of unlawful arrest; (2) trial judge erred in denying counsel’s late‑filed motion to withdraw (two days before trial); and (3) ineffective assistance. The SJC held the involuntary transport was a de facto arrest and the station interview (except the part already suppressed) were tainted, but the error did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice given the other strong trial evidence; it affirmed denial of counsel withdrawal and the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Melo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Melo’s stationhouse statements must be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful arrest (warrantless involuntary transport to station) | Transport and subsequent Miranda warnings cured any taint; statements admissible in part | Involuntary transport without probable cause was a de facto arrest; all statements are fruit of illegal arrest and must be suppressed | Court: Transport was a de facto arrest; Miranda alone insufficient to purge taint; Commonwealth failed to show attenuation, but erroneous admission (portion not suppressed below) did not create substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice given other evidence |
| Validity of Melo’s Miranda waiver at station | Waiver was knowing, voluntary, intelligent; Melo engaged in conversation after warnings and signed form | Melo was under drug withdrawal/exhaustion and not capable of valid waiver | Court: Waiver valid up to point motion judge suppressed (Commonwealth proved validity beyond reasonable doubt) |
| Whether Melo’s mid‑interview remark about a lawyer was an invocation of right to counsel | Remark was ambiguous; police need not stop or clarify before continuing | Remark was request for counsel; questioning should have ceased | Court: Remark ambiguous (not unambiguous request); officers not required to clarify; continued questioning permitted until later unambiguous invocation |
| Whether trial judge abused discretion denying defense counsel’s motion to withdraw two days before trial | Counsel was prepared; defendant had time to obtain successor; denial not an abuse | Defendant argued breakdown of trust, counsel unwilling to continue, and needed time to replace counsel | Court: Denial within judge’s discretion given timing, counsel’s preparation, and competing interests; no showing of likely deprivation of effective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes Miranda warnings and waiver requirements)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (custodial interrogation: requests for counsel require cessation of questioning)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (invocation of right to counsel must be unambiguous)
- Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (involuntary transport to station for questioning is tantamount to arrest; statements may be suppressed as fruits without probable cause)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (taint/attenuation analysis for evidence obtained after unlawful police conduct)
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (transporting a suspect to police station converts an investigative stop into a custodial seizure requiring probable cause)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (limits on investigative detentions vs. arrests)
- Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (involuntary removal from place of seizure to station invokes arrest protections)
- Commonwealth v. Edwards, 420 Mass. 666 (Mass. standard: Commonwealth must prove Miranda waiver beyond reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Damiano, 444 Mass. 444 (attenuation factors and taint analysis under state law)