Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Inventory, Impoundment of vehicle. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure. Motor Vehicle, Firearms. Firearms.
The defendants, Gerald Eddington and Jessica Cappas, were indicted on multiple firearm offenses, [FN2] and Eddington also was indicted on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license, in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 23. After an evidentiary hearing, a Superior Court judge allowed Eddington's motion to suppress [FN3] the firearm and ammunition recovered by police during an inventory search of an automobile driven by Eddington, in which Cappas was a passenger, on the ground that the firearm and ammunition were obtained as a result of an unlawful impoundment. [FN4], [FN5] A single justice of this court granted the Commonwealth leave to pursue interlocutory appeals from the judge's orders, see note 5, supra, in the Appeals Court, see Mass. R.Crim. P. 15(a)(2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996). The Appeals Court reversed the orders of suppression. Commonwealth v. Eddington, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 173, 179 (2010). We granted Eddington's application for further appellate review. Because we conclude that the impoundment was justified in the circumstances of this case, we reverse the allowance of the motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition.
NOTE: Any case material posted in this blog and/or links to cases access third party sites. This Author relinquishes all responsibility for the information contained therein. The author does not warrant the veracity of any of the information provided in this blog or the third party websites accessed from links provided herein. The author assumes no liability for the information provided herein or in third party websites that have been accessed via hyperlink from this blog.
Friday, March 11, 2011
An appellant's claim(s) must usually be preserved at trial. This mean that the defendant had to object to the error when it occurred in the trial. Because constitutional claims are of great magnitude, appellate courts might be more lenient to review the claim even if it was not preserved. For example Connecticut applies the following standard to review unpreserved claims: 1.the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; 2. the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; 3. the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; 4. if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Bush