Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-2377 criminalCOMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : JOSEPH MAIURO : 98-2377 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J,, April 9, 1999:-- Defendant, Joseph Maiuro, is charged with a count of unlawful delivery of cocaine, a schedule II controlled substance? Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence upon which a hearing was conducted on April 6, 1999. We find the following facts. On October 14, 1998, Trooper James Borza of the Pennsylvania State Police arrested defendant on a warrant charging him with the delivery of cocaine to an informant and with conspiracy with his mother to that delivery. The warrant was executed at the residence of defendant's mo. ther. Upon being taken into custody, defendant was advised of his Miranda rights.2 He acknowledged to Trooper Borza that he understood his rights. The trooper asked defendant if he would waive his rights and defendant said "Yes." Defendant then asked the trooper when he committed the delivery. The trooper read defendant the probable cause affidavit to the arrest warrant. The trooper did not ask defendant any questions because at that point defendant's mother was located in the residence. The trooper arrested the 1. 35 Pa.C.S. 780-113(a)(30). 2. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed.2d 694 (1966). 98-2377 CRIMINAL TERM mother on a warrant charging her with conspiracy with her son to the drug delivery. Defendant and his mother were then transported to the office of a District Justice. While waiting for a preliminary arraignment, Trooper Borza and Detective Sharon Lutz of the Lower Allen Township Police were with defendant. The two officers mentioned the drug case and defendant said that the charges against his mother were "BS" because she had nothing to do with the delivery. He added that it was Jessie to whom he had sold the drugs. Trooper Borza asked defendant how he knew it was Jessie and defendant said it was because Jessie was the only person to whom he had sold drugs in the last two weeks. Defendant repeated several times that his mother had nothing to do with the delivery. Trooper Borza told defendant that if he would put in writing that his mother, had nothing to do with the delivery he would dismiss the charges against his mother. Defendant's mother then told defendant that he should not do that until he talked to an attorney. Defendant seeks to suppress all of the statements that he made in the presence of Trooper Borza and Detective Lutz at the District Justice office. He argues that his Miranda rights should have been repeated and a new waiver obtained before any interrogation was conducted. In Commonwealth v. Proctor, 526 Pa. 246 (1991), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated: In Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 444 Pa. 478, 282 A.2d 378 (1971) we held that not every renewal of the interrogation process requires the repetition of Miranda warnings and that the court must look to the circumstances of each case to determine whether the warning has become stale. The criteria used in making this determination are: the length of time between the warnings and the challenged -2- 98-2377 CRIMINAL TERM interrogation, whether the interrogation was conducted at the same place where the warnings were given, whether the officer who gave the warnings also conducted the questioning, and whether statements obtained are materially different from other statements that may have been made at the time of the warnings. In the case sub judice, (1) there was a short period of time between the giving of Miranda warnings to defendant and his waiver after he was arrested at the home of his mother and the statements that he later volunteered and the questions he answered at the District Justice office, (2) the Miranda warnings were given to defendant while he was at his mother's residence and the only interrogation was at the District Justice office, (3) it was Trooper Borza who gave the Miranda warnings to defendant at the residence and asked him questions at the District Justice office, and (4) the statements defendant made at the District Justice office did not materially differ from the statement he volunteered to Trooper Borza at his mother's residence by asking the trooper, after he waived his Miranda rights, when he had committed the delivery. Furthermore, when Trooper Borza mentioned the drug delivery to Detective Lutz while they were with defendant and his mother at the District Justice office, defendant volunteered that his mother had not been involved in the crime. This clearly indicates a free and voluntary desire on the part of defendant, who had been given his Miranda rights and waived those rights, to acknowledge and accept responsibility for the delivery for which he was charged. The fact that Miranda warnings were given to defendant at his mother's residence where he waived his rights, and that the only interrogation was at the office of the District Justice, does not -3- 98-2377 CRIMINAL TERM based on a totality of the circumstances warrant the suppression of his statements at the District Justice office. AND NOW, this evidence, IS DENIED. Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esquire For the Commonwealth William Braught, Esquire For Defendant ORDER OF COURT day of April, 1999, the motion of defendant to suppress Edgar B. Bayley, J[ / :saa -4-