Commonwealth v. McWilliams

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Robert McWilliams's convictions for armed and masked robbery and attempted robbery, as well as the denial of his motions for a new trial and postconviction discovery. The court held that voluntary, unsolicited statements made more than six hours after arrest do not require suppression under the Rosario safe-harbor rule when they are not prompted by police questioning. The court also concluded that the evidence supported the attempted-robbery conviction and that the challenged identification evidence did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holdings

1. Evidence that the defendant was near the bank, possessed the materials necessary for the robbery, wore a disguise and clothing similar to those used in the earlier robbery, and had the present ability and intent to enter the bank was sufficient for a rational jury to find an overt act sufficiently near completion of the robbery to constitute attempt.
2. Voluntary, unsolicited statements made more than six hours after arrest and before presentment are not automatically subject to suppression under the Rosario safe-harbor rule when they are not prompted by police questioning or police efforts to induce discussion of the crime.
3. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress the defendant's statements, bicycle, or surveillance video because such a motion would not have succeeded.
4. The challenged identifications were not inadmissible under common-law fairness principles because they were reliable and were not made under circumstances sufficiently suggestive to create a substantial risk of mistaken identification or unfair prejudice.
5. The defendant failed to establish that his decision not to testify resulted from counsel's erroneous advice about the admissibility of prior convictions.
6. The motion judge did not abuse her discretion by denying the motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing because the motion and supporting materials did not raise a substantial issue supported by sufficient credible information.
7. The defendant was not entitled to postconviction discovery because he failed to establish a prima facie case for relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant committed an overt act sufficiently close to completing an armed robbery to support his conviction for attempted robbery.
2. Whether volunteered, unsolicited statements made more than six hours after arrest and before presentment are excluded under the Rosario safe-harbor rule.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of the defendant's volunteered statements and the resulting bicycle and surveillance evidence.
4. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of eyewitness identifications made in circumstances allegedly especially suggestive but not involving police action.
5. Whether counsel was ineffective because the defendant allegedly relied on incorrect advice concerning impeachment with prior convictions when deciding not to testify.
6. Whether the motion judge abused her discretion by denying the motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing.
7. Whether the defendant established a prima facie basis for postconviction discovery.

Disposition

affirmed