commvira

**Commonwealth v. Ira I.**
(**Mass. SJC, 2003)**


 * Facts:**


 * Defendant:** Ira et al. four juveniles charged with the beating of a classmate. A Juvenile Court Judge suppressed statements made to the school’s assistant principal and dismissed the cases on the grounds that the Commonwealth failed to comply with discovery orders.
 * Plaintiff:** Commonwealth of Massachusetts (appellate). Challenged the motions to suppress on the basis that the assistant principal was not acting as an agent of the police or prosecution when he took written statements from five students involved as part of his school investigation.

1. Did the judge make an error when dismissing the complainants and suppress the juveniles’ statements? **//Yes//** 2. Did the Commonwealth fail to comply with the pretrial discovery orders when the prosecution failed to provide the juveniles with the statements taken by assistant principal Lapan? **//No//**
 * Issues/Answers:**

1. Commonwealth vs. Snyder, 413 Mass 521,532 (1992) The Miranda rule does not apply to school officials unless they are acting as an instrument of the Police. The assistant principal was acting within scope of his employment and not as agent of the police when he questioned juveniles regarding the assault on a fellow student.
 * Basis/Rationale:**

Fifth amendment (due process)

The assistant principal’s investigation of student was not subject to probable cause standard. There was no evidence that police, who had merely taken statements from the complainant and the assistant principal on the day of the incident, “directed, controlled or otherwise initiated or influenced” the investigation.

2. Commonwealth v Beal, 429 Mass. 530, 532 (1999), Commonwealth v. Martin, 427 Mass. 816, 824 (1998). Information known to an independent witness, but unknown to the prosecution, is not within the possession and control of the prosecution unless the witness has acted as an agent of the government in the investigation of the crime. The materials in Lapan’s possession were not in the prosecutor’s “possession custody or control.”


 * Notes:**
 * Middle School -Springfield, Mass.
 * Case was remanded to Juvenile Court
 * Lapan was informed of attack by complaints mother- investigated the alleged June 5 incident because he believed that it was his responsibility "to look into matters from when children leave for school in the morning to when they return home at night, a term called portal-to-portal jurisdiction for school officials." It was "standard . . . when an incident like this takes place . . . [to] take statements and. bring the individuals down to [his] office." For school disciplinary purposes, and not to gather or provide information for any potential law enforcement or court action.
 * The record is sparse concerning how or when the juveniles' attorneys became aware of either the oral or written statements.
 * Commonwealth claims that the juveniles were informed as "part of pre-trial discovery" that Lapan took oral statements because that information was contained in Lapan's written statement to Officer Majewski (which was produced).
 * Prosecutor averred that she was unaware of the juveniles' written statements until the day of the hearing, when Ira's counsel informed her of their existence;
 * Juvenile’s attorney’s stated at the hearing that his motion to suppress was "based on some information that I just [found] out a week ago"; and they were "never given written statements until [the day of the hearing]."