COMMONWEALTH VS. CHARLES MONROE.
SJC-11756
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
August 19, 2015
472 Mass. 461 (2015)
Worcester. March 5, 2015. - August 19, 2015. Present: GANTS, C.J., SPINA, CORDY, BOTSFORD, DUFFLY, LENK, & HINES, JJ.
A Superior Court judge erred in denying a criminal defendant‘s motion to suppress statements he had made to police during a videotaped interrogation, where, taken together, the factors essential to a review of the totality of the circumstances persuasively demonstrated that the defendant‘s will was overborne and that the statements were involuntary, in that the interrogation, rife with threats to the defendant‘s ability to maintain contact with his infant daughter, properly could be characterized as psychologically coercive; in that the temporal relationship between the defendant‘s inculpatory statements and the psychologically coercive tactics was clear and close; in that the defendant was in an emotionally disturbed state, was of a young age, and had a poor educational background; and in that the interrogation was hostile in tone (i.e., the defendant‘s handcuffs were not removed and the detectives often left no opportunity for the defendant to respond) [468-472]; further, although not dispositive, the detective‘s use of minimization and false information, in combination with the psychological coercion, supported the conclusion that the defendant‘s statements were involuntary [472-472]; moreover, this court concluded that the introduction of the defendant‘s involuntary statements at trial was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, reversed the judgments, set aside the verdicts, and remanded the cases to the Superior Court for a new trial [472-474].
INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 2, 2010.
A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by James R. Lemire, J., and the cases were tried before David Ricciardone, J.
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.
Nancy A. Dolberg, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant.
Donna-Marie Horan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
1. Background. We summarize the facts the jury could have found, reserving for later discussion the details of the postarrest interview.
The morning of October 19, 2010, the first victim, E.C., a seventeen year old female, was walking to her bus stop when she noticed a man, later identified as the defendant, walking behind her. The defendant attempted to get her attention, but she did not turn around. The victim crossed the street, evading the defendant. The following morning, E.C. encountered the defendant again on her walk to the bus stop. This time, the defendant got close to her and began asking questions. The defendant attempted to “hug” the victim, but she pushed him away. When the defendant attempted to put his arm around the victim again, she noticed that he was
On October 25, 2010, the second victim, L.B., a fifteen year old female, was walking to school when the defendant approached her and began walking beside her. L.B. tried to ignore the defendant, but he grabbed her by the neck and pressed down on her throat. He put a knife to her throat, lifted her off the ground, and attempted to move her to a nearby driveway. The victim was able to get her feet back on the ground, remove the defendant‘s hand from her neck, and move away from the defendant. The victim then ran from the scene. On arriving home, she realized she had minor cuts to her neck and a deep cut on her thumb.
On October 27, 2010, the third victim, A.G., a sixteen year old female, was walking to school when the defendant approached her and told her she looked familiar. A.G. engaged the defendant in conversation, and he said that he would walk her to school. The victim, who was not that familiar with the area, eventually realized that the two were not walking in the direction of her school, and when she stated this, the defendant became angry and aggressive. He told her to walk towards “the green building,” and at some point she noticed he had something in his hand. The victim followed the defendant into the building, where he put a knife to her neck.
Inside the building, the victim performed oral sex on the defendant; he also touched her breasts and inserted his penis into her rectum.3 After about fifteen minutes, the defendant told the victim to give him another “blow job.” The victim complied, and the defendant eventually ejaculated into her mouth. The defendant made the victim empty her tote bag in front of him and took a yellow highlighter that had been in her bag. The defendant then allowed the victim to leave, and she resumed walking towards school. After disclosing the attack to school officials, the victim was brought to the hospital where a sexual assault exam was performed. The defendant‘s deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was found on A.G.‘s genitals and face. A.G. identified the defendant as her attacker in a photographic array. Police recovered a yellow
2. Discussion. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to police officers during a postarrest interview, claiming that even if his waiver of the Miranda rights is deemed valid, his statements were nonetheless involuntary. The judge denied the motion based on his review of the videotaped interview, the transcript of the interview, and the police report prepared after the interview. The defendant‘s inculpatory statements and some of his exculpatory statements, made during the interview, were admitted through the testimony of the two interviewing detectives and a redacted version of the videotaped interview that was played for the jury.4
On appeal, the defendant argues that the motion judge erred in denying his motion to suppress, claiming that psychological coercion, together with other factors,5 rendered his statement involuntary and that the admission of his involuntary statement at trial violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. More specifically, he contends that the coercive nature of the detectives’ statements regarding the fate of his infant child compels a finding that his statement was involuntary.
a. Standard of review. In reviewing the grant or denial of a motion to suppress, we “review de novo any findings of the motion judge that were based entirely on the documentary evidence.” Commonwealth v. Thomas, 469 Mass. 531, 539 (2014). Because the defendant‘s interview was video recorded, “we are in the same position as the motion judge to determine what occurred during the interview.” Id. at 535 n.4.
At approximately 4:30 P.M., Detectives James O‘Rourke and Donna Brissette entered the room. Detective O‘Rourke asked the defendant to stand and moved the defendant‘s cuffed hands from behind his back to in front of him. Detective O‘Rourke advised the defendant that the interview was being videotaped, informed him of his right to use a telephone, read him the Miranda rights, and informed him that he was at the detective bureau concerning a warrant. When the defendant asked about the substance of the warrant, Detective O‘Rourke informed the defendant that he could not tell the defendant about the substance of the warrant unless the defendant waived his Miranda rights and agreed to speak with the officers. The defendant then signed a waiver of his Miranda rights.
Detective O‘Rourke then asked the defendant several background questions, on topics including his education and whether he had any children. The defendant said that he was working toward his general education degree (GED) and that he has both a son and a daughter. At 4:43 P.M., the detectives informed the defendant for the first time that he had been positively identified by three victims of assaults that occurred on October 20, October 25, and earlier that morning, October 27. In connection with the assaults, Detective O‘Rourke asked the defendant questions regarding his whereabouts and activities earlier that morning and on October 25. The detective went on to tell the defendant that he “should be trying to help [himself] out,” and after that point the interview grew increasingly aggressive. Detective O‘Rourke informed the defendant that he would only have “one opportunity to talk . . . and tell [the detectives] why this happened.”
During the next few minutes of the interrogation, the defendant told the police that he had emigrated from Africa with his family, that he had emotional problems, that he had not eaten or showered recently, and that he had slept on the stairs inside the house where he once had lived with his family. He also revealed that he was aware the police were looking for him but that he did not know why, only to be interrupted by the detective stating, “You damn well know why the cops were looking for you.” It was at this point that the interrogation turned from questions about the defendant‘s background back to the subject of his child. At 4:45 P.M., the detective stated the following:
“[T]his is the time to talk to us about what happened, okay? You know what happened. This is your opportunity. You‘re probably going to end up going away for a long time. You‘re not going to see that two month old baby for a long, long time, okay? This is the time, maybe this morning you met this girl, maybe it was consensual or whatever but this is the time to talk to us about it and what was going on the last couple of — last week, with those two other girls. This is the time to talk to us about it and tell us about it, okay? Look at me, don‘t keep looking away from us.”
The defendant then dropped his head into his hands and began to cry, eliciting from the detective a command to stop “looking away.” The defendant explained that “the only reason why I‘m crying ‘cause I don‘t want to live a day without seeing my daughter.”
Within minutes of these repeated references to the possibility that the defendant‘s girl friend could lose custody of the child, the defendant made incriminating statements regarding the three incidents. He first acknowledged that there was one dollar in E.C.‘s backpack the prior week. The defendant then conceded that he had walked with A.G. earlier that morning but maintained that they did not have any sexual contact and that he did not assault her. Detective Brissette later told the defendant that they had evidence of the defendant‘s DNA on A.G. from the assault that morning. After more prodding by the detectives, the defendant remarked, “I‘m going to tell on behalf of my daughter, because I love my daughter . . . I‘m going to talk — I‘m going to tell you the truth because I love my daughter.” The defendant then admitted that A.G. performed oral sex on him and that he ejaculated on her exposed buttocks, but stated that she initiated this contact.
The detectives asked whether he had committed any other robberies, and the defendant responded that maybe he committed robberies “a long time ago.”10 The defendant further stated, “I get emotional problems, ‘cause I do have emotional problems. I need help, that‘s all I need.”
c. Voluntariness. A voluntary statement is one that is “the product of a ‘rational intellect’ and a ‘free will,’ and not induced by physical or psychological coercion.” Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 460 Mass. 199, 207 (2011), quoting Commonwealth v. LeBlanc, 433 Mass. 549, 554 (2001). In applying this principle, “we examine whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement, the will of the defendant was overborne to the extent that the statement was not the result of a free and voluntary act.” Commonwealth v. Selby, 420 Mass. 656, 663 (1995), S.C., 426 Mass 168 (1997). “[B]oth the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation” are encompassed in the analysis of the totality of circumstances (citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Tavares, 385 Mass. 140, 146 (1982), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982), quoting Commonwealth v. Daniels, 366 Mass. 601, 606 (1975). More specifically, we may consider “promises or other inducements, conduct of the defendant, the defendant‘s age, education, intelligence and emotional stability, experience with and in the criminal justice system, physical and mental condition, . . . and the details of the interrogation, including the recitation of the Miranda warnings.” Commonwealth v. Mandile, 397 Mass. 410, 413 (1986), S.C., 403 Mass. 93 (1988), and cases cited. The Commonwealth bears the burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant‘s confession was voluntary in accordance with these principles. Commonwealth v. Baye, 462 Mass. 246, 256 (2012). After considering all of the factors essential to our review of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, especially the use of psychologically coercive tactics related to the defendant‘s child, we conclude that the Commonwealth has failed to meet that burden.
The temporal relationship between the defendant‘s inculpatory statements and the detectives’ psychologically coercive tactics is clear and close and it supports our conclusion that the defendant‘s will was overborne and that his statements were involuntary. Contrast Commonwealth v. Durand, 457 Mass. 574, 596-597 (2010). The chronology is telling. The defendant made his first incriminatory statement at 5:05 P.M.11 after the litany of threats described supra, and more specifically three minutes after the detectives
The defendant‘s personal characteristics, considered as part of the totality of the circumstances of the videotaped interview, also are relevant to our conclusion that his will was overborne by the police tactics involving his child. During the interrogation, the defendant alerted the police to and demonstrated a disturbed emotional or physical state, a factor relevant to voluntariness. LeBlanc, 433 Mass. at 555; Commonwealth v. Magee, 423 Mass. 381, 388 (1996). In Magee, supra at 383, the defendant was “exhausted, emotionally distraught, and disheveled, and her responses to questions were interrupted by periods of sobbing and shaking.” In that case, we held that the defendant‘s debilitated physical and emotional state, together with psychological coercion in the form of a promise by police that she would receive the
We consider as well the defendant‘s age and educational background in our analysis of the voluntariness of the defendant‘s statements. See Commonwealth v. Meehan, 377 Mass. 552, 567 (1979) (defendant‘s youth and poor educational background may support finding of involuntariness). Here, the defendant had recently turned eighteen years of age and was in the process of obtaining his GED at the time of his arrest. He had emigrated from Africa to the United States just six years prior. While these factors alone are insufficient to warrant suppression of the defendant‘s statements, the defendant‘s young age and poor educational background support the conclusion that his statements were involuntary. See id.
Last, the hostile tone of the interview also supports our conclusion that the defendant‘s will was overborne during the course of the interview. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 463 Mass. 95, 103 (2012). In Johnson, supra, we recognized that the environment of an interview may be considered oppressive if the defendant is handcuffed. Here, the defendant‘s handcuffs were not removed. Moreover, the tone of the interview was hostile where the two detectives volleyed statements between them, often times leaving no opportunity for the defendant to respond.
Taken together, these factors persuasively demonstrate that the defendant‘s will was overborne and that, as a consequence, statements made thereafter were involuntary. The use of those statements against the defendant at trial was constitutional error.
ii. Other tactics. We comment briefly on the detectives’ use of other interrogation techniques which, although not dispositive, contributed to the defendant‘s loss of his “ability to make an
Second, “[t]he use of false information by police during an interrogation is deceptive and is a relevant factor indicating a possibility that the defendant‘s statements were made involuntarily.” Selby, 420 Mass. at 664. Here, Detective Brissette informed the defendant that they had evidence of his DNA on the victim who had allegedly been assaulted that morning. It is evident from the record that the detectives could not have yet known to whom any DNA recovered from that victim belonged. In combination with the psychological coercion, the minimization and false statement support our conclusion that the defendant‘s inculpatory statements were involuntary.
d. Effect of the constitutional error. Having concluded that it was constitutional error for the defendant‘s involuntary statements to be used against him at trial, we must now determine whether to set aside his convictions. See Durand, 457 Mass. at 592, quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 398 (1978) (“any criminal trial use against a defendant of his involuntary statement is a denial of due process of law” [emphases in original]). The defendant argues that his convictions must be vacated because the admission of his statements was a structural error. We have not yet determined whether the structural error standard should apply or whether, with the defendant having filed a motion to suppress on constitutional grounds, the harmless error standard should apply, and we do not do so here. See Durand, supra (reserving for another day whether structural error applies). See also Commonwealth v. Hoyt, 461 Mass. 143, 154 (2011), quoting Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24, 25-26 (1998) (“The denial of a motion to suppress evidence on constitutional grounds . . . is reviewable without further objection at trial“). Under the harm-
The defendant‘s incriminating statements contained on the videotape were pivotal to the Commonwealth‘s case. Although the Commonwealth presented the testimony of the three victims and other evidence tying the defendant to the incidents, such as DNA evidence and his clothing, the extent of criminal liability from the incidents depended on credibility. Because the defendant did not testify, the video recording provided the jury with his description of the encounters. During the involuntary portion of the interview, the defendant admitted that he robbed E.C. and L.B., that he pulled out a knife on L.B., and that he had sexual contact with A.G. Therefore, the prosecution was able to use the nontestifying defendant‘s involuntary statements to support the victims’ credibility. The prosecutor also referenced the defendant‘s videotaped statements in his closing argument, telling the jury that the defendant admitted to having a knife on him during all three incidents.14
Moreover, the defense strategy was limited by the introduction of the involuntary statements. Defense counsel conceded to the acts that the defendant admitted performing during his videotaped interview, specifically robbing the first victim, using a knife while intending to rob the second victim, and having consensual sex with the third victim. Defense counsel argued that the Commonwealth failed to prove the remaining charges.15
3. Conclusion. The judgments are reversed and the verdicts set aside. The case is remanded to the Superior Court where the defendant is to receive a new trial in accordance with this opinion.
So ordered.
against the first victim, kidnapping of the second victim, and indecent assault and battery against the third victim.