Commonwealth v. Powell, 468 Mass. 272

Background

Defendant arrested June 14, 2010 (≈1:30 p.m.) for motor vehicle larceny; held at Fall River police station until ≈11:45 p.m. and then interviewed for ≈2 hours after waiving Miranda; during interview he admitted to shooting Jonathan Nieves.
Nieves had been shot Feb 26–27, 2010; police suspected gang-related murder; officers had probable cause for murder but arrested on larceny without a murder warrant while awaiting DA authorization.
Defendant moved to suppress inculpatory prearraignment statements, arguing Miranda defects and that Rosario (which bars prearraignment custodial statements made more than six hours after arrest absent a waiver or narrow exception) applied.
The Superior Court granted suppression under Rosario; Commonwealth appealed interlocutorily arguing Rosario should be abandoned or interpreted differently (charge-specific clock; emergency tolling).
Supreme Judicial Court considered whether to retain Rosario’s six-hour bright-line safe harbor and whether exceptions or charge-specific rules applied to admit the statements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this court should abandon the Rosario six-hour bright-line rule in favor of a totality-of-the-circumstances test	Rosario is inflexible, conflicts with majority approach, and should be replaced by a multifactor test	Rosario remains an effective prophylactic protecting prompt presentment, preventing coercive delay, and promoting predictability	Court declined to abandon Rosario; six-hour bright-line safe harbor remains in force
Whether the Rosario six-hour clock is offense- or charge-specific (i.e., resets for uncharged crimes about which police question the arrestee)	Six-hour period should be charge-specific; questioning about uncharged offenses should not trigger the Rosario clock	Rosario’s safe harbor begins at arrest absent extraordinary circumstances; clock not reset by uncharged or later-filed charges	Court held the six-hour period begins at arrest; not extended or reset by the fact defendant was questioned about uncharged murder
Whether the emergency/exigent-circumstances exception to Rosario tolled the six-hour period	Public-safety exigency from an ongoing homicide investigation justified tolling the clock	No extraordinary or nonpolice-attributable circumstances existed to toll the six-hour period; delay attributable to police management	Court rejected emergency exception; facts did not justify tolling Rosario here
Whether defendant’s prearraignment statements (made after six hours and without a waiver of prompt presentment) should be admitted	Commonwealth sought admission under its alternative theories above	Defendant sought suppression under Rosario (and alternatively Miranda adequacy)	Court affirmed suppression of the statements under Rosario; admission improper

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Rosario, 422 Mass. 48 (establishing six-hour bright-line safe harbor for prearraignment custodial statements)
Commonwealth v. Siny Van Tran, 460 Mass. 535 (applying Rosario tolling exception where defendant’s condition and travel made timely interrogation impracticable)
Commonwealth v. Morganti, 455 Mass. 388 (explaining Rosario does not apply to out-of-state arrests awaiting rendition)
Commonwealth v. Martinez, 458 Mass. 684 (discussing Rosario’s application and related voluntariness analysis)
Commonwealth v. Butler, 423 Mass. 517 (discussing prompt presentment rule under Mass. R. Crim. P. 7(a)(1))
Commonwealth v. Fortunato, 466 Mass. 500 (describing rights protected by prompt presentment and Rosario’s benefits)
Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (federal hybrid approach to confession admissibility and presentment delay)
Commonwealth v. Perez, 577 Pa. 360 (Pennsylvania case returning from a six-hour bright-line rule to a totality test)
Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (McNabb–Mallory doctrine on unreasonable delay in presentment)
McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (same)