1.

Commonwealth v. Alfonso A. 438 Mass. 372 (2003)

date:

2003

summary:

Juvenile arrested and charges with possession of a firearm based on his presence at an apartment where Boston police officers seized several firearms pursuant to the execution of a search warrant. Appeals court held that the juvenile was not provided with a ‘genuine opportunity’ to consult with an interested adult before making statements at the scene. SJC affirmed, holding that an adult, who is sufficiently interested in the juvenile’s welfare, must be immediately and evidently available to the juvenile in order for there to be a genuine opportunity for consultation.

2.

Commonwealth v. Mark M. 59 Mass. App. Ct. 86 (2003)

date:

2003

summary:

Juvenile investigated on charge of sexual assault. At a meeting with a Detective, juvenile and legal guardian received oral and written Miranda warnings. Prior to initial interview, juvenile did not consult with guardian, but rather, with her consent, agreed to speak with Detective in guardian’s presence. Juvenile made incriminating statements to Detective in initial and a second, private meeting. Appeals Court held that it was improper for initial interview to commence without allowing the juvenile an opportunity to consult with his guardian; also held that trial court’s findings lacked evidence as to whether statements made in second interview were sufficiently insulated from initial interview’s illegality. Furthermore, court held there are no cases requiring the police to inform juvenile of his right to consult; rather, in order for there to be an actual opportunity to consult, the interested adult must understand that there is an opportunity and what his role is in respect to that consultation.

3.

Commonwealth v. Clark C. 59 Mass. App. Ct. 542 (2003)

date:

2003

summary:

Police Lieutenant spoke to juvenile’s grandmother at her home regarding juvenile’s participation in a home invasion (juvenile was not present). Several days later, juvenile phoned lieutenant; after some initial confusion, lieutenant informed juvenile that he had been at his home and spoken to his grandmother. Juvenile made incriminating statement and asked lieutenant if he should confess. Juvenile said he would come in to the station or call the following day. Juvenile failed to contact lieutenant; lieutenant went to juvenile’s home with an arrest warrant obtained some days earlier. Lieutenant was admitted to home, and directed to juvenile’s bedroom, where he was sleeping. Upon being awoken by Lieutenant, juvenile asked if his grandmother had turned him in and, when asked why he hadn’t turned himself in, told Lieutenant that he was afraid. Appeals Court held that only the last two statements should be suppressed, finding that Miranda was inapplicable to initial statements because juvenile was not ‘in custody,’ but last statement by juvenile was a result of the functional equivalent of interrogation.

4.

Commonwealth v. Lamont L. 438 Mass. 842 (2003)

date:

2003

summary:

SJC held that when a juvenile is adjudicated a youthful offender on a misdemeanor, the appropriate remedy is for a delinquency finding to enter, rather than for the court to dismiss the indictment. Although juvenile here should not have been indicted on the misdemeanor in the first place; however, because the indictment properly stated an offense and the juvenile had full notice of the offense against him, the inclusion of an additional, improperly brought indictment did not prejudice him.

5.

Commonwealth v. Furr 58 Mass. App. Ct. 155 (2003)

date:

2003

summary:

Juvenile adjudicated youthful offender on charges of unlawful possession of a firearm, receiving a firearm with an altered serial number, attempted intimidation of a witness and obstruction of justice in 2000. Juvenile had previous youthful offender adjudications on charges of armed carjacking, kidnapping and assault and battery. On 2000 indictments, Commonwealth sought imposition of enhanced penalties available where defendant has previous adjudication of a violent crime or serious drug offense as defined in M.G.L. c 269, s 10G. Appeals court found that prior adjudication as a youthful offender alone is basis for invoking enhanced penalties provision, interpreting language in s 10G, when read in conjunction with M.G.L. c. 140, s. 121 (defining violent crime as acts of juvenile delinquency involving the use or possession of a deadly weapon that would be punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year if committed by an adult,) to consider adjudication as a youthful offender a conviction.

6.

Commonwealth v. Olaf O. 57 Mass. App. Ct. 918 (2003)

date:

2003

summary:

Juvenile adjudicated delinquent of one count of statutory rape and two counts of indecent assault and battery. On appeal, juvenile argued that he was entitled to a jury of 12 because he faced the possibility of ‘infamous punishment’ because the adjudication will cause his name to be listed on the sex offender registry. Appeals Court held prosecution did not involve risk on infamous punishment because it was tried as a juvenile case with no greater outcome than commitment to Department of Youth Services until the age of 18.

7.

Judicial Opinion Summary - 2001

author:

Kenneth J. King

date:

3/25/01