even "[e]xtensive contact with the police and other authorities by itself does not demonstrate unusual sophistication or knowledge about Miranda rights"
How later courts described this case
- even "[e]xtensive contact with the police and other authorities by itself does not demonstrate unusual sophistication or knowledge about Miranda rights"
- no suppression where defendant was sixteen years old
- no suppression where defendant was sixteen
- sixteen years of age
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Commonwealth v. St. Gelais, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 733 (1997)
Guyton is inapplicable because its holding, that a seventeen-year-old cannot consent to the police interrogation of a sixteen-year-old defendant because a minor cannot satisfy the interested adult requirement, is not relevant here.
The opinion
Nolan, J.
(dissenting). The court’s result flies in the face of settled law, and, accordingly, I dissent.
We accept a judge’s subsidiary findings unless there is clear error. Commonwealth v. MacNeill, 399 Mass. 71, 76 (1987). We give substantial deference to the judge’s ultimate findings. Id.
The judge’s finding that Leya-Anne could fulfil the role of an “interested adult” is not clearly erroneous. She was thirteen days away from her eighteenth birthday and was acting in loco parentis for the defendant and two younger siblings. She was a mother herself. The defendant testified that he took to mind what his sister told him. Further, the judge had an opportunity to witness her demeanor and her maturity at trial which, despite the time lapse, permitted the judge to assess her character. Although she did not go to the police station with the defendant, Leya-Anne was present in the apartment when the police first interrogated her brother about the money and was available over the telephone before he was questioned at the police *505 station. The defendant chose not to consult with his sister about the decision to waive his rights, but he had the opportunity to do so and this is all that is necessary. Commonwealth v. MacNeill, supra at 78 .
We have often stated that we evaluate the totality of the circumstances when considering the effectiveness of a Miranda waiver. Commonwealth v. Mandile, 397 Mass. 410, 413 (1986). Taking the circumstances as a whole, the judge’s denial of the motion to suppress is warranted in this case. This defendant was a “mature juvenile” at the time of the arrest. He was nearly seventeen years old; he was working; he had prior experience with the criminal justice system. There was no evidence that he was intoxicated or mentally ill. There was no improper police inducement to confess. While the police might have tried harder to reach the defendant’s father in Boston, the finding that Leya-Anne served as an interested adult is not clearly in error.