Lombardo v. DF Frangioso & Co., Inc.

Co., Frangioso D. F. & Inc. Lombardo v. Frangioso & T. vs. D. F. Inc. & Co.,

Anna Lombardo another. February May 18, 1971. 1971.

Middlesex. Spiegel, Quirico, Tauro, Spalding, Cutter, Reardon, C.J., Present: Braucher, & JJ. Negligence, Causing Wife, Tort. loss Husband and Consortium. Actionable Decisis. of consortium. Stare by negli- caused A wife was not entitled to recover following injuring husband; her New gence person third Tauro, dissenting, C.J. with York Cent. & H. R. R.R. 203 Mass. 278. Spiegel Braucher, JJ., joined. whom April 18, dated Superior Tort. Writ in the Court by Pecce, J. on demurrer. The action was heard plaintiff. Y. for the Semerjian Evan Herlihy M. for the defendants. George counts, against J. in two one The declaration is Cutter, wife, plaintiff, count the of two defendants. each each negligent that, consequence of the conduct alleges as a count, plaintiff’s defendant named in that husband . . . performing from injured, prevented was “was marriage from a normal continuing . . . occupation and . . . that as result relationship with the [plaintiff; the [plaintiff’s interfered with negligently [the defendant husband, whereby marriage relationship her society, services, loss of her suffered [plaintiff all to relations, consortium, affection, companionship, judge A sustained Superior Court great damage.” cause of ground “[po on the demurrer based . . . declaration.” set forth in the for the matter exists plaintiff appealed. & H. R. R.R. 203 York Cent. New Since Feneff ae- generally has been it decided "'529 v. D. as cepted Massachusetts law that has spouse neither lack recovery of consortium or loss of marital of a growing and other services out negligent defendant’s spouse. to the other v. injury Bolger See Boston Elev. Ry. 420, York, 205 Mass. Whitcomb v. New H. & H. 421; N. R.R. 442; Mass. 440, Gearing Berkson, 215 v. Mass. 257, Constantine, v. 260-261; Cassidy 56, 57-58; Mass. v. Rodgers Boynton, 279, 315 Mass. Alden 281-282; v. Nor Arena, Inc. 267, wood 332 Mass. Thornton v. 275-276; First Natl. Inc. Stores, 222, 226-227; 340 Mass. Prosser, (3d 118, 119, ed.) esp. 913, Torts fns. p. 83, 917, p. §§ fn. Hennessey, Martin and 15; (2d Automobile Law ed.) interpret 251. We Erickson v. Buckley, 467, 230 Mass. 470-471, as at recognizing liability most the of defendant (who had negligently injury caused to a to compen wife) (bound a husband his support sate wife and care for her) expense for medical and other for the wife’s care to which the had' put injury been reason of the husband wife. actual expense For such husband still See, consequential damages. however, recover the Cassidy 56, case, 57-60, supra. Mass. See also Thibeault v. Poole, 480, 483-487; 283 Mass. 21 A. annotation, L. R. 3d 1113, 1117.1 case,

Prior to the it had been indicated or held in Feneff v. New N. H. & H. Kelley York, R.R. 168 308, Mass. 311- v. Elev. 312, 563, Boston 191 Mass. 564, and Duffee Hey Prime, 474, 476, v. 197 Mass. that a husband could case, however, Kelley for loss of consortium. The expressly case, 278, overruled Mass. Feneff majority opinion that, 282. A of the court are Massa under or extension the general principles chusetts following case and the decisions it (already cited), the Feneff (as spouse’s recovery The rule as to for certain intentional contrasted negligent) relationship Only with interference the marital is different. alleged. Bigaouette Paulet, negligence, however, 123, is here See 134 Mass. Pearson, 285-290; 125-126; Hilton, Nolin v. 191 Mass. Whittet ; 164, 167-169; Mangino, Kaye Mass. Saeli 335 Newhall, 592-593 Solomon, 303. See also de Antonio v. 42 F. R. D. (D. Mass.). 322-323 Co.,& v. D. of a for loss negligence, recovery, based may be there from a consortium, apart or for loss services spouse’s reim- duty support) upon right (based incurred closely expenses related of medical bursement correctly The demurrer was wife. injured care of an sustained. in the United authority is much there are aware that

We re- rule.2 We from the Massachusetts differs which States having well established rule, been however, our gard de- since the sixty years the more throughout than changed, we standing is to be long of such If a rule cision. accomplished any modification opinion are of change A decision. by judicial and Legislature by the easily applied (as decision is not by judicial type of this or after sufficient prospectively legislation) case of in the insur- adequate forthcoming change to ensure of a notice retrospectively pending If applied arrangements. ance change may of a accidents, consequences past or to cases their or to indemnitors. unfair defendants Forty- in the case is discussed We note that the Feneff Doc. (1970) Pub. of the Judicial Council Report sixth its consideration of in the course of 76-78, 144, pp. No. overruling legislative 2364 (a proposed House Bill No. 1970 has recommended The Judicial Council case). of the Feneff spouse either to recover allowing strongly that bill Plainly there is not una- enacted.3 lack of consortium be case should out of the growing rule nimity that we are of In the circumstances any respect. be altered (Tent, 14, April Torts, draft No. 693 and 695 2d: §§ See Restatement Prosser, notes, esp. p. 14, par. 1969) reporter’s d. See also to cited in and cases many ed.) (3d authorities Our attention was invited 118-119. Torts §§ comprehensive jurisdictions by plaintiff’s brief. in other sup (emphasis report concludes the Judicial Council The statement damages of the wife for loss of consortium plied): denied that “It cannot be society, companionship, ‘proper comfort’ damages future for loss of or variety damages sun. Be speculative under the by far the most would be consequential damages under (or husband) may now recover a wife cause 6A, for all of her 231, damages a wife now recover in and because G. L. [c.] brought by, herself, and because of the fact juries in an incredibly speculative, we do damages are for loss of consortium ” . bill in form recommend Mass; Co.,-Inc.

Lombardo v. D. appropriate is not one revision opinion the matter by judicial decision. demurrer sustaining

Order affirmed. (with Spiegel whom dissenting C.J. Tauro, upholds Superior Braucher, join). majority opinion JJ. The demurrer to a decla sustaining order the defendants’ Court consortium, mutual right-of loss of ration tort for fellowship, companionship, partners to each other’s marriage inc relationship, affection, cooperation every conjugal agree I am- unable to relations. luding sexual 124; Paulet, v. Bigaouette majority view. See Consortium, L. Rev. 30 Col. The Breakdown Lippman, that, as a alleges (1930). plaintiff’s The declaration sustained her husband negligence, of the defendant’s result normal maintaining him from prevented injuries which with her. relationship marriage for the loss of spouse of a to -recover conversation, criminal enticement constituting after acts Massachusetts. consistently upheld in adultery, has been Pearson, Nolin Paulet, supra. Bigaouette Hilton, Mangino, Mass. 164. Saeli 283. Whittet Newhall, Yet, Kaye v. Mass. 591. 353 a of consortium for for the loss of a wife to recover right an- by on her husband negligently inflicted personal injury in this recognized Commonwealth. has never been other has cause a married law rule that woman The common by this court accepted loss of consortium for action Hurd, Barnes v. Mass. century. early in the nineteenth century, same court the close (1814). Near for loss of con to recover of a husband recognized right the inflicted injuries negligently of personal sortium because simultaneously per party a third by his wife upon right for her damages in her to recover own mitted the wife H. & H. N. R.R. York, New injuries. Kelley personal time, declined to court, at that (1897). The . . in- . wife, “by reason whether decide [statutes] Mass. 529 Frangióse & v. D. F. 311) might main- (p. married women” rights the creasing re- consortium the loss of her husband’s an for action tain her injuries husband. inflicted negligently from sulting else- considered has been said, question “The court 312.) harmony.” (P. in decisions are not the where, but the judgment it was decided Thereafter, negligently brought by in a tort action wife defendant in- injuries did not bar husband’s personal inflicted resulting from those consortium for loss of action dependent Elev. v. Boston injuries. same Duffee caused negligently for the right to recover The' Prime, v.Hey was reaffirmed in of his wife’s consortium tort- to survive the but held (1908), death. feasor’s & H. R. R.R. 203 Mass. v. New York Cent.

In Feneff Knowlton, who Justice written Chief opinion an (1909), case, only three supra, opinion also wrote Duffee could maintain court held that wife earlier, this years pre her husband had where an for loss action caused the same personal injuries viously recoveredfor However, holding of the acts negligent defendant. right of the hus deny case did not in the court Fmeff injuries, recover for matter, of the wife for that band, brought consortium, in a including loss of contrary, spouse’s action. On with the together of the right to the consortium asserted that court “DÜhe alike, and wife to husband belong seems to spouse in favor of each.” 203 the same reasons upon rest and to totally abolishing the husband’s Far from Mass. at 280. — — would seem rather dicta language albeit such rights, recognition of the wife’s implicit to constitute brought an action under loss of consortium is made No mention circumstances. appropriate Ry., supra, Elev. which v. Boston case of Duffee failed action after the wife had brought his the husband case Kelley distinguish court did hers, although the prevail to in which the R.R., H. husband supra, H. & York, N. New tried together. actions were arid'wife’s 359 Mass. 529 Lombardo v. D. F.

In Bolger v. Boston Elev. with, 205 Mass. 420 (1910), my opinion, misplaced on the case as au reliance Feneff thority, this held that court the husband could not for loss of his wife’s consortium in action tried together with an for wrongful her death.

In Whitcomb v. New N. H. & H. York, R.R. 440, (1913), permitted the husband was to recover not for the loss his wife’s consortium where she had “received compensation the any injuries” (em full from defendant for phasis supplied). Berkson,

In Gearing without (1916), court analysis, simply the stated that “consequential damages for loss of consortium cannot be recovered in either case [by wife],” citing authority the the husband this proposition Bolger cases, supra. both and

Erickson Buckley, 230 Mass. 468 (1918), involved tort, by two actions for one the wife caused negligently personal injuries and the other by the husband for “loss of society expenses.” wife’s services and This court allowed in both recovery actions, apparently but limited recovery to medical other “indisputable” him expenses incurred the care his wife. P. 470. In arriving decision, at this the court cited the Kelley Nolin cases, supra, but made no mention of Feneff, Bolger, Gearing cases, supra. Whitcomb or Rodgers recently, Boynton,

More loss of (1943), contained dictum that earning capacity “[t]he by the wife an item of for which damage was husband was entitled recover. He could recover the even value of what he deprived disability perform household duties.” I history, view of this decisional believe

In court presented reexamine the now issue light prior all and of instant case in the our decisions jurisdictions. decisions in fpr .of Appeals States United .the .Court the Dis- Columbia, could, wife, that a trict of-.con- held sué for from; injury sortium where resulted her husband 535 529 359 Co., Fraugioso Inc. & v. D. F. Lombardo Inc. Argonne v. Co. party. third Hitaffer two intervening (D. App.). F. 2d 811 C. Ct. 183 recog have jurisdictions decades, a number substantial recent action, cause the most of this nized the existence 40 In Foley, (Fla.). v. 2d Florida. 247 So. being Gates recognizing jurisdictions now deed, forty-three consortium, twenty-six loss of action for such right of wife.1The remain to the allow it both the husband husband, distinction it to restrict ing seventeen v. law. Owen state of the See validity present dubious (W. Mich.); D. Baking F. 820 Corp. Supp. Illinois 260 274 F. 169 Supp. v. & Ohio R.R. Karczewski Baltimore D. (N. Ill.). 1 Horton, allowing recovery by wife: Kake v. Cases both husband and (1860). App. Argonne (Ct. Hawaii, 2 F. 2d v. Co. Inc. 183 209 811 Hitaffer Cooney (D. 1953). 1950). Moomaw, Supp. F. Neb. v. 109 D. C. v. 448 Acuff (Tex. Iowa, (1956). Page Scaramozi, Schmit, Civ. v. 272 288 S. W. 2d 909 248 1956). (dictum). Wyo. (1956) App. Trans. 75 390 Mo. Pac. Fox v. Fox, (1959). (1960). (1957). Helgeland, Miller, 227 Ark. Hoekstra v. 78 D. Co. v. 351 S. 82 Adams, (1960). Naiditch, v. 53 Del. 229 v. 20 Ill. 2d 406 Yonner Dini (1960). Duffy Lipsman-Fulkerson Montgomery Stephan, v. v. Mich. 33 359 1961). App. Supp. (D. Coleman, v. & F. 71 Mont. 105 Ga. Co. 200 Walden (1962). City (1962). Nanni, R. Mariani v. 95 I. Novak Kansas 242 153 v. (Mo. 1963). Transit, Cuthbert, S. W. 2d Ross v. 239 429 Inc. 365 539 Ore. (1965). (1964) Corp. America, 46 . Ekalo v. Serv. N. J. 82 Constructive Ry. Sonneman, Idaho, (1966). v. Md. v. 91 199 Deems Western Nichols (1966). Quality Casting Co. 2d Md. Moran v. Aluminum 34 Wis. 542 247 95 Millington (1968). (1967). v. v. Elev. Co. 22 Y. 2d 498 Thill Southeastern N. (1969). Erecting Marker, Modern Co. Minn. Troue v. Ind. 284 508 253 284 1970). Remlinger Ling, (Ky. v. Olds 451 W. 2d 411 Clouston Kotsiris v. S. (1970). Cadillac, Foley, 40 Inc. 22 2d 65 v. 247 So. 2d mobile Ohio St. Gates

(Fla.). right Allowing only: of action Nash v. Mobile R.R. & Ohio (1928). Leigh, (1947). v. Miss. Milde v. N. D. 149 823 75 418 Nelson (1952). Zimmerman, M. Lockett & Co. 206 Okla. 334 Franzen A. 127 Colo. 381 Ltd. v. (1953). (1953) Mullen, Ash v. S. S. Inc. 43 Wash. 2d 345 (1958). (semble). Atchison, Topeka Deshotel v. & Santa Fe 50 Cal. 2d 664 (1960). Snodgrass United Dist. Ala. 42 v. Smith v. Constr. Workers 271 (1960). Redding, Cherry-Burrell Corp. H. v. 2d 252 103 N. 56 Wilson 145 So. (Fla. (1962). Legg, 1962). Page Winter, Seagraves 240 v. S. C. v. 516 (1963). (1962). Roseberry Starkovich, W. Va. 331 v. 73 N. M. 211 147 (1964). Schafter, Maine, Dautel, 406 v. 340 192 Kans. Potter 161 Hoffman (1965). (1965) Rys. Krohn v. . Baldwin State & Vermont 125 Vt. (1966). & Inc. 219 Tenn. 37 Brown Glenside Lumber Richardson-Merrell (1960). following Neuberg Bobowicz, (1969), Pa. 601 401 Pa. 146 Coal Co. 429 Denying v. Duke Power 224 N. C. such of action: Helmstetler Co. (1952). (1945). Anderson, H. Ind. Burk v. Lockwood v. Wilson (1956). States, Supp. Black 144 Conn. v. United Lee Co. (D. 1967). (1950). Utah, Code, tit. 55-36 Va. .529 Fraugioso v. D. F.

It has contended that loss of been consortium includes support its loss of scope that, within since damages implicitly element contained the husband’s diminished recovery earning capacity, allowance wife for consortium might loss of result recovery. in double v. Cassidy Constantine, 56, Rodgers See Mass. v. Boynton, Alden v. 279, Arena, Norwood Inc. 332 Mass. Stores, and v. First Inc. Thornton Natl. 222. by A the trial proper charge judge could eliminate this Argonne Inc. problem. See Co. 183 F. 2d Hitaffer (Ct. C.), D. cert. den. U. App. S. 852. The prob joint lem further minimized a trial of both the of If husband's wife’s causes action. brought sepa and rately, to consolidate should motions be allowed. See Thill v. Erecting Modern Co. 284 Minn. 513. a originally

When rule of law dealing established by judicial I change, decision believe that when required, its judicial should come of a decision.2 by means In these I do we circumstances, believe that should look to the Legislature change. To do a so is distortion of con- the judicial of cept whereby Legislature review the is invited, effect, judicial in If to reverse decisions. the courts are to rightful independence assert their in- and maintain and powers proper sphere, they herent within their should not pass Legislature to the of altering by the task statute judicial holdings the decisions mat- prior nonstatutory passage ters. The mere time does not shift the burden to Legislature. change

This court should effect our substantive merely by judicial law other States have done so because our policy decision. If the earlier indicated decisions permitting right the husband the to recover for loss of con- fully by sortium more well enunciated reasoned States, which include such recovery by decisions — — and I it to we wife, is sound consider be so then Bolger denying recovery Elev. Boston for loss Kelley, Hey cases. wife’s consortium overruled Duffee Mass. 529 1). our not to direct ought We in this case. should so state for redress.3 Legislature solely to look citizens judicial then, to matter of sound remitted, “We are today’s light to be reached policy, decision comparable solution common-law society and the current 33, 46, Mich. Montgomery Stephan, problems.” Talbot Smith that I of Justice with the observations agree rule obtaining, the longer old rule no reasons “[t]he judge- wife’s action were with it. The obstacles to the falls destroyed.”4 they” ought “judged to be invented Corp. America, 46 N. J. In Ekalo v. Constructive Serv. 82, 94-95, Supreme extended Jersey the New Court previously recognized right of the husband loss of consortium the wife. of a sub- objection that such extension response legislative a result of ac- stantive should come about as judicial decision, tion rather than a the court said: “Stress- considerations, view that ing policy expressed the the we own plaintiff justly the should have his of action in the that the loss, response own and to contention pointed matter left out that Legislature, must be to the we it ruling nonliability judge-made, since the earlier of 3“Equally unjustifiable aas basis for husband discrimination between argument frequently and treatment law wife is the made the that the common courts changed except by legislation. of The consortium should not be judicial. Furthermore, exclusively of has evolution the action been almost problem law, usually this is a the the since judiciary, of tort the courts to act which is in domain of proper cases; it and no is these it is means in injustice legislature remedy of certain that the would the in the absence judicial factors, judicial adapt Because these to determination. of reluctance particularly inappropriate.” the to common law modern conditions seems L. Col. Rev. 1352. 4Compare in Justice Smith’s statement to that of Justice Sutherland States, overruling long-standing 381-382, Funk v. United Federal behalf U. S. the evidentiary testify that a in a case in rule wife could not criminal may “It that of defendant-husband: be said the court should rule, contrary experience to continue enforce the old however to modern thought, opposed, principle, general legis and however in current Congress judicial opinion, leaving may become, it lation and have responsibility changing course, Congress power; if it. Of has that but Congress act, respect fail re as it has failed in of the matter now under upon power, question, view, duty be and the court called to decide the it not the present court, possess it if it to decide in accordance with day justice than accordance with some standards of wisdom and rather in antiquated past?” rule of outworn 359 Mass. v. D.

could, under settled principles law, common be readily changed by judges to meet changing concepts times. . . . said who, same be in answer to those while conceding indefensibility today’s society denying the wife’s consortium claim though the husband’s claim continues, suggest nonetheless that common the archaic law differentiation should remain unaltered until the legisla- ture chooses act.”5

This court, has circumstances, prior reversed decisions supporting archaic rules of law the absence legislative it action has when the rule to be in- determined compatible thinking. Colby with modern legal Carney Hosp. 356 Mass. prospectively pre- overruled many on cedents the issue of im- immunity. charitable that portant case, past many the court said: “In the occasions we have declined to im- renounce defence of charitable munity set forth in Hosp. McDonald Massachusetts Gen. 120 Mass. and Roosen Peter Brigham Hosp. Bent . . . position We took this because we were of opinion that renunciation ac- preferably complished prospectively and that this should be best done by legislative action. ... Now it appears only three still four States adhere to the doctrine. ... It seems likely legislative this Commonwealth is probable near future. we Accordingly, take give occasion to adequate warning that next we time jurisdictions permitting The decisions of for other to recover wife loss a frequently of consortium in re action have necessitated prior judicial decisions, e.g., Montgomery Stephan, versal of 359 Mich. Casting Quality Deems v. Md. Western 247 Md. 95. Moran v. Aluminum Erecting Co. 34 Wis. 2d 542. Thill v. Modern Co. v. v. 284 Minn. 508. Troue Marker, Ling, (Ky.). 253 Ind. 284. Kotsiris v. 2d 451 S. W. Clouston Remlinger Cadillac, Foley, Oldsmobile Inc. 22 Ohio St. 2d 65. Gates v. (Fla.). So. 2d 40 Although affirming right the wife’s to sue loss for of consortium result- ing negligently injuries from inflicted to her have husband several States acted, part, modifying at least in on basis of married women’s statutes the common permitting sue, law status of the wife hold her to contract or realty recognized by name, only State, Oregon, specifically in her appears own one to have right statute the wife’s to sue loss Sec- for of consortium. Oregon tion 108.010 of the Revised all Statutes conferred on wives civil rights prior 14, 1941, including law common held husbands “the to June of for loss of consortium of husband.” Frangióse & F.D. respecting legal question a squarely are confronted it." it is abolish immunity doctrine our intention charitable serious administrative opinion The majority envisions in our judicial a change by decision problems incident this court considering whether subject. law must, of law, we change a our should effect substantive upon a change of such probable effects course, consider Commonwealth, justice of general administration litigation casualty upon losses and its effects on especially if sub- However, even already our courts. overburdened re- ought preclude such not stantiated, considerations It is that there covery argued if it is otherwise warranted. damages or speculative for for potential be abuse potential Yet also permitting recovery. such this same regard exists to all real elements intangible, other but of for Non- damages recovery presently which allowed. supported speculation this court from deter adopting progressive legal concepts.6 modern and

As practical matter, probably would scant attention paid claims by judges, juries adjusters and claims to tenuous injuries. of arising relatively loss out of minor Indeed, the assertion such claims as frivolous or “make weight" ex- arguments might recoveries well be greater pected to to the plaintiff’s redound detriment.

The experience jurisdictions they of other indicates that any have from suffered adverse effects the allowance recovery by spouse negli- either consortium in gence actions. That also reveals experience creation significant problems by permitting recovery for loss consortium.7 6By analogy, implementation long opposed discovery” “oral

by many in this because and ex Commonwealth of similar fears abuse adoption 3:15, cessive Rule costs. Since its in 1965 S.J.C. has universally accepted major legal practice. been advance in Massachusetts comparable jurisdictions allowing recovery Court administrators of nine reported significant for such losses have the rule has not caused in workload; claims; encouraged it crease in their caused an has not has not frivolous it appreciable damage gen awards it increase in has not juries damages by any erated unfavorable in the confusion assessment of results. :529 v. D. & tentatively approved American Law Institute has

rule permitting recover, wife after bodily harm tor- tiously husband, “for inflicted loss his resulting of society, including any impairment of for capacity sexual intercourse, for any expense reasonable incurred by her providing in medical treatment." 2d: Torts, Restatement (Tent, 14, April 15, draft No. 1969). See § American Institute, Meeting, Law 46th Annual Proceedings, p. 157; p. Harper James, Torts, 8.9, Prosser, 643; (3d Torts ed.) § 119, p. of a. wife’s for of Denial loss from the wife regarded “derives time when the lawin respects in some her husband’s chattel. He was allowed damages injuries to her in much the same manner that he would have allowed damages been or injury of of his domestic animals." Kronenbitter v. one Washburn Y. Wire Co. N. 2d 527. Considerable in legislation jurisdictions Massachusetts and other has steadily resulted emancipation married women and in reflected move- a. recognition legal ment toward the equality of men present women. While this trend does some basic particularly in the area of problems, domestic relations, fulfilment of this general complete philosophy areas such as the at issue the instant case is one as desirable as it is inevitable.

Beyond dispute, is, “there a continuing marital re inseparable lationship, obligations, ties and mutualit3r companionship, affection and pleasures, which makes that . . . relationship (consortium.] entity. factual We see no not be why concept valid reason to permit extended caused to the recovery wrongs negligently legal unity through either . . . physical injury spouse. That both spouses marriage suffer relationship when the adversely affected injury physical supplied). either is fact" (emphasis Deems v. Md. 247 Md. Western 108-109. my this case is one which the opinion, current needs society strongly require justify most extension surrounding law of walls torts" and the “ancient Murray. Commonwealth accomplish “to them carving of additional niche 244, 250. ante, Marsh Co. George v. Jordan justice.” should be right to loss that argued It is I wife. see it given before to the husband accorded is that answer The short a no for such discrimination. basis “equal protec- and wife provide husband the court can same time. at the tion” be overruled. demurrer defendants’ Murray. Robert vs. Richard

Commonwealth May 19, 1971. April Essex. Braucher, Tauro, C.J., Spalding, Spiegel, JJ. Quirico,

Present: confessions, Law, counsel, Assistance of Admissions Constitutional Practice,, rights, Waiver. Search and seizure. Waiver constitutional confessions, Criminal, Evidence, Admissions and Assistance counsel. test, Clothing. Of and Seizure. Search There was no error Events There was where trial inculpatory search sought supported not authorized G. ant was that the defendant he sented questions and while not under arrest receiving ments of the questions suppress made was reversible error. occurring it warrant, freely and by lawyer would first no appeared inculpatory be asked until of a a error in the admission as evidence to statements, finding taken to a warnings required by aid remain police from the time even use in a voluntarily had conviction of the defendant. [547] statements L. if officer, silent and to have counsel murder case the affidavit clothing had probable waived his constitutional police c. and the admission his ^[546] of the and in requested who knew lawyer station made in the of the defendant in evidence warrant cause circumstances day Miranda v. accompanying arrived, appearing to when first at the station absence for a after a that the defendant was the defendant to merely denial of thereof in evidence at time two at a criminal trial did not belief murder that the of his Arizona, 384 U. present. constituting waiver to seize rights in seized St. the warrant that the evidence lawyer in permit 1964, 557, 1, days pre-trial pursuant ^[544] evidence was police making later c. a of state- reply defend- motion finding S. amply repre- when after §

Case Details

Case Name: Lombardo v. DF Frangioso & Co., Inc.

Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Date Published: May 18, 1971

Citation: 269 N.E.2d 836

Court Abbreviation: Mass.