‘Off the record’ comments admissible

“Nonetheless, we also have repeatedly held that such deception or trickery does not necessarily compel suppression of the confession or admission but, instead, is one factor to be considered in a totality of the circumstances analysis.’’

The ruling drew the dissent of Chief Justice Roderick Ireland and Justice Ralph Gants, who contended that statements elicited by police as a result of promises that they are “off the record’’ should be considered involuntary, if that promise is broken.

At issue was a 2002 boat fire in Chelmsford that State Police determined was intentionally set.

When a suspect, Mark Tremblay, was interviewed by a state trooper, Tremblay, 50, was cooperative and acknowledged having suspicions about who set the boat on fire.

When Tremblay said he had concerns about what he called gay activities at the boat owner’s house, Trooper Peter Cummings told Tremblay they could take the conversation “off the record.’’

After that, Tremblay began “an agitated narrative during which he used profanities, expressed his anger about ‘some of the things that he and his wife [had] been subjected to,’ ’’ according to the Appeals Court opinion. Tremblay then submitted a written statement that included a less-detailed version of what he described.

The following month, Tremblay was indicted on charges of malicious burning of personal property, damage of property for the purpose of intimidation, and a civil rights violation. He was later convicted of malicious burning of personal property, damage to property for the purpose of intimidation, and a civil rights violation.

Tremblay was convicted despite his attempt to suppress the “off-the-record’’ conversation. His motion was denied by a Middlesex Superior Court judge, Paul Chernoff.