Commonwealth v. Senior

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Robert B. Senior’s conviction for vehicular homicide. The court held that hospital personnel who performed a blood alcohol test at defense counsel’s request were not agents of the defense team, that retrograde extrapolation evidence was sufficiently reliable for admission, and that the defendant’s failure to answer one question after waiving Miranda rights did not invoke his right to remain silent.

Holdings

1. Hospital personnel were not agents of the defendant or his attorney because the record did not show their consent to act on the defense's behalf and subject to its control. The attorney-client privilege and the grand-jury-subpoena protection for defense agents therefore did not apply, and the Commonwealth's subpoena and use of the records did not warrant dismissal of the indictment.
2. Retrograde extrapolation evidence was sufficiently reliable and was properly admitted. General acceptance is relevant but not essential; the controlling inquiry is the reliability of the underlying scientific theory or process, which may be shown through testing, peer review, publication, general acceptance, or other evidence of validity.
3. The defendant did not invoke his right to remain silent. After knowingly and voluntarily waiving his Miranda rights and answering questions, his failure to answer one particular question, while continuing to cooperate and answer other questions, was not an affirmative indication that he was invoking the right. The evidence and prosecutor's comment were therefore permissible.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commonwealth improperly obtained and introduced the defendant's hospital blood-alcohol-test results because the hospital personnel were agents of the defendant or his attorney, or because the records were protected by privilege or constitutional rights concerning preparation of the defense.
2. Whether retrograde extrapolation evidence estimating the defendant's blood-alcohol level at the time of the collision satisfied the reliability requirements of Daubert and Commonwealth v. Lanigan.
3. Whether the defendant's failure to answer one police question after receiving Miranda warnings constituted an invocation of his right to remain silent, making the evidence and the prosecutor's comment impermissible.

Disposition

affirmed