Commonwealth v. King

16 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Traylor

    29 Mass. App. Ct. 584 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 7 times

    But if real danger to the public is indicated, as suggested, for example, by a pattern of hostility to, and rejection of, previous rehabilitative efforts, there is a basis for transfer to adult status. Commonwealth v. King, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 602, 603-605 (1984). On review, it bears remembering that the trial court judge is entrusted, within the statutory framework, with considerable discretion in making the determination whether an accused should be treated as an adult.

  2. Commonwealth v. Ray

    467 Mass. 115 (Mass. 2014)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that requiring attendees to provide identification and sign in with the court officers before entering the courtroom did not constitute a partial closure

    This evidence, coupled with the defendant's other experience with the criminal justice system, was sufficient to establish that his waiver was knowing and voluntary. See Commonwealth v. King, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 602, 602, 603, 610–611, 460 N.E.2d 1299 (1984) (sixteen year old defendant capable of waiving Miranda rights because of prior involvement with court system, recent exercise of right to counsel after consultation, and low-pressure environment during questioning). As evidence that the defendant understood the Miranda rights, the motion judge specifically emphasized the features of the June 11 interview, where the defendant thoroughly was advised of his rights, and where the defendant seemed to understand his rights by indicating during the course of the interview that he thought he should speak to an attorney, at which point the interview ended.

  3. Commonwealth v. Alfonso A., a juvenile

    438 Mass. 372 (Mass. 2003)   Cited 69 times
    In Commonwealth v. Alfonso A., 438 Mass. 372, 379-380 (2003), the opportunity to consult was not meaningful, where a fifteen year old juvenile declined repeated offers to have police contact his mother.

    The juvenile's actual assertion of his rights is the strongest indication possible that the juvenile was indeed aware of and understood those rights and was capable, on his own, of asserting them. Thus, for example, in Commonwealth v. King, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 602, 609-610 (1984). where the juvenile was not given an opportunity to consult with an adult, the juvenile's prior involvement with the courts coupled with his assertion of his right to an attorney during a recent interrogation sufficed to support the judge's conclusion that the juvenile had sufficient experience, knowledge, or sophistication.

  4. Commonwealth v. Guyton

    541 N.E.2d 1006 (Mass. 1989)   Cited 14 times

    " Since all three of those times were in connection with the March 3, 1985, incident, however, they clearly shed no light on the defendant's sophistication at the critical time. The present case is unlike Commonwealth v. King, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 602, 603, 610-611 (1984), in which a sixteen year old defendant was held capable of waiving his Miranda rights despite the unavailability of an interested adult. The defendant in that case had been involved with the court system since the age of eleven and one-half years, and had, two weeks prior to the arrest in question, exercised his right to consult with counsel and, after consultation, had remained silent.

  5. Commonwealth v. MacNeill

    399 Mass. 71 (Mass. 1987)   Cited 33 times

    "Special caution, of course, must be exercised in examining the validity of inculpatory statements made by juveniles." Commonwealth v. King, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 602, 609 (1984). Commonwealth v. Cain, 361 Mass. 224, 228 (1972).

  6. Commonwealth v. King

    391 Mass. 1105 (Mass. 1984)

    May 3, 1984.Further appellate review denied: Reported below: 17 Mass. App. Ct. 602 (1984).

  7. Commonwealth v. Pacheco

    87 Mass. App. Ct. 286 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    “Special caution ... must be exercised in examining the validity of inculpatory statements made by juveniles.” Commonwealth v. MacNeill, 399 Mass. 71, 74, 502 N.E.2d 938 (1987), quoting from Commonwealth v. King, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 602, 609, 460 N.E.2d 1299 (1984). In general, when police interrogation involves a juvenile over the age of fourteen, as is the case here, the juvenile “may properly waive his constitutional rights if, after having been advised of those rights, he was afforded an opportunity to consult with an interested adult who was informed of and understood those rights.”

  8. Commonwealth v. Stone

    70 Mass. App. Ct. 800 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 7 times

    He has also shown that he can conduct regular financial transactions insofar as he can rent an apartment and make regular payments on electronic equipment. See Commonwealth v. King, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 602, 610 (1984) (defendant could understand and voluntarily waive Miranda rights where, despite a learning disability, he "had reached the tenth grade . . . and he was able to hold down a job"; his "criminal record . . . suggests the fact that [he] was thoroughly schooled in police procedures"); Commonwealth v. King, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 905, 907 (1992) (rejecting the defendant's claim that limited intelligence prevents a valid waiver because "he had been employed in the past, lived independently, and had had prior contact with the law"). "Whether . . . evidence [is] so inflammatory in nature as to outweigh its probative value and preclude its admission is a question to be determined by the trial judge in the exercise of his sound discretion."

  9. Commonwealth v. Clark C., a Juvenile

    59 Mass. App. Ct. 542 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 4 times
    Informing suspect that they are under arrest does not constitute interrogation

    The lieutenant did nothing to provoke the juvenile's question other than inform him that he was under arrest. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. at 301 (1980) (Miranda warnings requirement does not apply to words or actions of police normally attendant to arrest and custody); Commonwealth v. King, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 602, 608-609 (1984) (same; nothing about a request to see an arrest warrant again should have alerted officers that the defendant might make an incriminating statement). 3. Officer's answer to juvenile's question.

  10. Commonwealth v. Alfonso A.

    53 Mass. App. Ct. 279 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that "this court has questioned the notion that detail, alone, uncorroborated by police investigation, is an indication of veracity"

    The Commonwealth also cites the police officers' testimony that the juvenile appeared calm. The Guyton court also contrasted Commonwealth v. King, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 602, 603, 610-611 (1984), a case relied on by the Commonwealth. In King, the defendant had been involved with the court system since the age of eleven and one-half years, and had, two weeks prior to the arrest in question, exercised his right to consult with counsel and, after consultation, had remained silent.