Commonwealth v. Selby
420 Mass. 656 (1995)
Rule of Law:
The use of false information by police during an interrogation, while a relevant factor, does not automatically render a suspect's confession involuntary; its admissibility is determined by the totality of the circumstances.
Facts:
- Mark Edwards called Cory Selby, stating he had been robbed and asked Selby to accompany him to a residence in Dorchester.
- Selby, Edwards, and a woman named Larricia McConnico went to the victim's (Jack Berry, Jr.'s) residence.
- Selby stated he possessed a .380 caliber handgun and Edwards had a nine millimeter handgun.
- Selby initially told police he stayed on the porch, but after police presented him with a fabricated handprint, he admitted to entering the hallway with a gun drawn.
- After police falsely suggested they had found his fingerprints on shell casings, Selby admitted he had loaded the gun used in the shooting.
- Selby ultimately confessed that he went to the victim's apartment armed with a nine millimeter handgun to retrieve money and drugs.
- He stated that as he was leaving, the victim, Jack Berry, Jr., grabbed his hand and the gun discharged, firing two or three shots and killing Berry.
Procedural Posture:
- Indictments were returned against Cory Selby, charging him with murder in the first degree and other related offenses.
- Selby filed a pretrial motion in the trial court to suppress custodial statements he made to the police.
- The motion judge denied Selby's motion to suppress.
- A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court granted Selby leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts then heard the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the police's intentional use of false information, such as non-existent fingerprint evidence, during a custodial interrogation automatically render a suspect's subsequent confession involuntary in violation of the Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Liacos, C.J.
No. The police's use of trickery or false information does not automatically render a confession involuntary; rather, voluntariness is assessed under the totality of the circumstances. A statement is voluntary if it is the product of a 'rational intellect' and a 'free will.' While police deception is a relevant factor in this analysis, it is not dispositive. The court considered that Selby was sober, alert, and lucid, and had been repeatedly advised of his Miranda rights, which he voluntarily waived. Citing precedent, the court noted that a lie relating to a suspect's connection to a crime is the least likely form of trickery to render a confession involuntary. Considering all factors, the court concluded that the police's deception did not overbear Selby's will, and therefore his statements were voluntary and admissible.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the prevailing 'totality of the circumstances' test for determining the voluntariness of a confession. It clarifies that police deception, while disfavored, is not a per se violation of due process that automatically invalidates a confession. This decision provides law enforcement with a degree of latitude in using trickery as an interrogation tactic, while also instructing courts to weigh such conduct against other factors, such as the defendant's characteristics and the overall interrogation environment, to ensure the defendant's will was not overborne.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Commonwealth v. Selby (1995)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"