Appeals Court: 'Rote adherence' to Miranda not required.

Byline: Kris Olson

A defendant who was advised of his "right to an attorney" but not explicitly advised of his right to have an attorney present "during questioning" should not have had his videotaped statements suppressed, the Appeals Court ruled March 5.

"We reverse, because rote adherence to the exact language of Miranda is not required, and because in this case the warnings 'in their totality, satisfied Miranda,'" Judge John C. Englander wrote on behalf of the panel inCommonwealth v. Lajoie.

On Nov. 7, 2012, defendant William Lajoie was interviewed on audio and videotape by Detective Brian Cordiero at the Fall River police station about a 15-year-old incident involving sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16.

Lajoie admitted to having sexual intercourse with the girl but stated that she told him that she was 19, and that the sexual intercourse was consensual.

Lajoie further said that, while his name was on the birth certificate, he was uncertain whether he was the father of the woman's 15-year-old son.

Prior to conducting the interview, Cordiero advised the defendant of his rights. He mentioned the right to an attorney but not did not include the phrase "during questioning."

Lajoie was indicted in March 2013 on charges that included rape of a child with force, aggravated assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to rape, and violation of an abuse prevention order.

Lajoie moved to suppress his videotaped statements, arguing that the Miranda warnings he had been given were defective.

Based on federal case law, the motion judge concluded that...