Commonwealth v. Starkweather
79 Mass. App. Ct. 791
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant convicted of rape and assault and battery; appeal on suppression, first complaint doctrine, and jury instructions.
- Police seized a gun, clump of hair, and handcuffs during arrest and subsequent vehicle searches linked to the rape.
- Motion court suppressed statements from police interview and items at the house; hair and handcuffs in vehicles were not suppressed.
- Arrest based on a red Jeep and truck; dispatches identified the defendant as suspect in a sexual assault with a firearm.
- The suppression issue hinges on whether searches of the Jeep and truck were valid as incident to arrest or inevitable discovery.
- Trial focused on whether the testimony beyond the first complaint doctrine and the jury instructions were proper; the jury acquitted on several charges and convicted of a lesser included offense of rape.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether vehicle searches were valid as incident to arrest or inevitable discovery | Starkweather contends searches were improper | Commonwealth argues valid under arrest and inevitable discovery | Searches upheld; inevitable discovery applies |
| Whether testimony exceeded the first complaint doctrine | Prosecution evidence violated the first complaint rule | Evidence largely independently admissible; any excess did not create miscarriage of justice | Most testimony independent; any excess did not create substantial risk of miscarriage |
| Whether jury instructions, including first complaint and consent elements, were proper | Instructions impermissibly ambiguous on consent and first complaint | Instructions properly defined concepts and framed constructive force | No error in jury instructions |
| Whether voir dire and corrective instruction after prosecutor’s closing were necessary/effective | Voir dire was required to purge improper influence | No voir dire requested; supplemental instruction adequate | No voir dire required; supplemental instruction adequate |
| Whether consent standard under statute was correctly applied | State must prove lack of reasonable belief of consent | Statutory standard not requiring proof of lack of reasonable belief | Not required to prove lack of reasonable belief; instruction correct |
Key Cases Cited
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1914) (warrantless searches in pursuit of evidence; general rule for arrest)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits on vehicle searches after arrestee is secured; probable cause still permits)
- Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (U.S. 2004) (approval of vehicle context for arrest-related searches)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (probable cause to search vehicle areas where evidence might be found)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 548 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011) (recognizes vehicle search rationale in Massachusetts)
- Commonwealth v. Arana, 453 Mass. 214 (Mass. 2009) (independent significance of police conduct and demeanor evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Dargon, 457 Mass. 387 (Mass. 2010) (application of first complaint doctrine and corroborative evidence)
- Commonwealth v. McCoy, 456 Mass. 838 (Mass. 2010) (limits of first complaint doctrine; necessity of side issues)
- Commonwealth v. Stuckich, 450 Mass. 449 (Mass. 2008) (first complaint doctrine boundaries in victim statements)
- Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217 (Mass. 2005) (limiting instructions regarding first complaint)
- Commonwealth v. Urban, 450 Mass. 608 (Mass. 2008) (consent element in rape cases; reasonable belief not required)
- Commonwealth v. Toole, 389 Mass. 159 (Mass. 1983) (Mass. statute scope on searches incident to arrest)