COMMONWEALTH v. COSS (2019)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of rape, drugging a person for the purpose of sexual intercourse, and providing liquor to a person under twenty-one years of age. On appeal, the defendant claims the motion judge erred in denying his motion to suppress. We affirm.

The defendant claims that because English is not his first language, he did not understand his Miranda rights,² and his statement to the police was not voluntary. However, the motion judge found as a matter of fact that the defendant understood and spoke English proficiently. That finding is more than amply supported by the record, and the defendant does not assert that it is clearly erroneous. See Commonwealth v. Isaiah I., 450 Mass. 818, 821 (2008) (“we adopt the motion judge's factual findings absent clear error”). In the end, even if there had been clear error, the defendant would have been unable to establish any harm as his statement was not admitted in evidence at trial.³

Judgments affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

3.   Both parties failed to mention this fact in their briefs.