Massachusetts Appeals Court Remands Firearm Convictions Over Inadequate Suppression Findings
In a recent firearms decision with important implications for suppression litigation, the Massachusetts Appeals Court remanded a case for further factual findings after concluding that the motion judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress was inadequately supported by findings of fact.
In Commonwealth v. Alfred B. Flores, the defendant was convicted after a jury-waived trial of:
Three counts of carrying a firearm without a license
Three counts of possessing a large capacity feeding device
While the Appeals Court rejected the defendant’s sufficiency-of-evidence and stipulation arguments, it determined that the suppression ruling could not be meaningfully reviewed because the motion judge failed to make sufficient factual findings. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings, and the Appeals Court retained jurisdiction.
This decision underscores a critical point in Massachusetts criminal defense practice: suppression rulings must be grounded in specific, articulated factual findings. Without them, appellate review is impossible.
The Background: Domestic Call, Firearms in a Truck
The case arose from a late-night domestic disturbance call in Malden in July 2017.
Police encountered the defendant near a pickup truck. During the interaction, officers learned that firearms were inside the vehicle. A search of the truck yielded:
A Glock firearm from the glove compartment
Three Glock magazines containing fifteen live rounds each
Two additional handguns located in a bag
The defendant also told police he did not have a Massachusetts license to carry.
He was charged with multiple firearm and large capacity feeding device offenses. Several additional charges were later dismissed.
The Motion to Suppress: Miranda and Custody
The defense filed a motion to suppress both the firearms and the defendant’s statements.
Initially, the motion judge ruled in part that the defendant had been in custody once handcuffed and suppressed certain post-handcuff statements. However, after reviewing additional materials from a prior dangerousness hearing, the judge reversed course and denied the motion entirely.
The judge concluded that:
The search was lawful, based on consent and plain view
The defendant was not in custody until the end of the incident
There was no custodial interrogation
The statements were voluntary
But the problem was not necessarily the ultimate conclusion.
It was the absence of detailed findings explaining how the judge reached it.
Why the Appeals Court Remanded the Case
When reviewing suppression rulings, appellate courts accept subsidiary factual findings unless clearly erroneous but independently review the legal conclusions.
Here, the Appeals Court explained that it could not conduct meaningful review because the motion judge did not apply or meaningfully analyze the relevant custodial interrogation factors.
Under Massachusetts law, whether a person was subjected to custodial interrogation requires consideration of factors such as:
The place of the interrogation
Whether police conveyed that the person was a suspect
The nature and tone of questioning
Whether the person was free to leave
The motion judge did not address those factors in any meaningful way.
Nor did the judge clearly make credibility determinations regarding the testifying officer.
An appellate court cannot fill in factual gaps or engage in independent fact-finding. Because the findings were insufficient, the Appeals Court remanded the case to the Superior Court for additional factual findings and reconsideration of the suppression ruling.
Notably, the original motion judge had retired, meaning a new judge would need to conduct further proceedings.
Sufficiency of the Evidence: Firearm Licensing
The defendant also argued that the evidence was insufficient because:
There was no proof he had lived in Massachusetts more than sixty days (relevant to statutory exemptions for new residents), and
There was no proof he knew his possession of the firearms was illegal.
The Appeals Court rejected both arguments.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, there was sufficient evidence that:
The defendant was a New Hampshire resident
He did not possess a Massachusetts license to carry
No record existed of his having applied for or received one
Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that the Commonwealth need not prove that a defendant knew his firearm possession was illegal — only that he knowingly possessed the firearm without a license.
This distinction is critical in Massachusetts firearms prosecutions.
Stipulations to Essential Elements in Bench Trials
The defendant further argued that his convictions should be reversed because the parties stipulated to certain essential elements (that the weapons met statutory definitions), and:
The stipulation was not personally signed by him
It was formally admitted after the Commonwealth rested
The Appeals Court found no reversible error.
In a jury-waived (bench) trial, judges are presumed to understand and apply the law correctly. The record reflected that the defendant acknowledged understanding the stipulation and its implications before trial began.
There was no prejudice.
Why This Case Matters in Massachusetts Firearm Cases
This decision highlights three important principles for anyone facing firearm charges in Massachusetts:
1. Suppression Litigation Is Fact-Driven
Miranda and custody questions are intensely fact-specific. Trial judges must make detailed findings addressing the relevant legal framework. Without them, convictions may be delayed or disrupted on appeal.
2. Knowledge of the Law Is Not Required
In Massachusetts, the Commonwealth does not have to prove that a defendant knew he needed a license — only that he possessed the firearm without one.
This often surprises defendants who assume ignorance of licensing requirements is a defense.
3. Bench Trial Stipulations Must Be Clear
While stipulations can streamline trial, they must be entered knowingly and properly. Even technical procedural issues will be reviewed for prejudice.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Can a conviction be remanded because of inadequate suppression findings?
Yes. If a motion judge fails to make sufficient factual findings to support a suppression ruling, an appellate court may remand the case for additional findings and reconsideration.
What makes an interrogation “custodial” in Massachusetts?
Courts evaluate factors including location, tone, whether the person was treated as a suspect, and whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave.
Does the Commonwealth have to prove I knew my firearm possession was illegal?
No. The prosecution must prove knowing possession of a firearm without a license, but it does not need to prove that you knew the licensing requirement existed.
Can stipulating to elements hurt my defense?
It depends. Stipulations can narrow issues for trial, but they should be entered knowingly and strategically, particularly in firearm cases.
Charged With a Firearm Offense in Massachusetts?
Massachusetts firearm laws are among the strictest in the country. Suppression issues, licensing technicalities, and procedural errors can determine the outcome of a case.
At Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we defend clients charged with:
Carrying a firearm without a license
Possession of large capacity feeding devices
Illegal ammunition possession
Domestic-related firearm allegations
Superior Court firearm indictments
If you are facing firearm charges in Malden, Boston, Brockton, or anywhere in Massachusetts, call us immediately.
📞 (508) 897-0001
Early intervention matters. A properly litigated suppression motion can change everything.