Commonwealth v. Spencer (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-072-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11195 COMMONWEALTH vs. SHANE M. SPENCER. Worcester. November 8, 2012. ‑ May 2, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Practice, Criminal, Motion in limine, Admissions and confessions. Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Relevancy and materiality, Consciousness of guilt. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 13, 2006. Motions in limine to exclude statements of the defendant and telephone recordings were heard by David Ricciardone, J. An application for leave to file an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Spina, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by him. Stephen J. Carley, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Charles K. Stephenson (Joan M. Fund with him) for the defendant. LENK, J. The defendant has been indicted for murder in the first degree, and for unlawful possession of a firearm and of ammunition as an armed career criminal. The Commonwealth seeks to introduce at his forthcoming trial the defendant’s three recorded statements to police, made on July 29, July 30, and August 3, 2006, as well as eight recorded telephone calls that the defendant made from the Worcester County house of correction between August 2 and August 14, 2006. Shortly before trial was scheduled to begin, in conjunction with a number of other motions in limine, the trial judge considered the defendant’s two motions in limine to exclude his statements to police and the recorded calls. Following two hearings on those motions, the judge ordered that portions of the statements, largely from the interviews on July 29 and 30, 2006, be excluded, because they constituted unequivocal denials of police accusations, were not relevant to any matter in the case, or were substantially more prejudicial than probative. The judge concluded that the statements in six of the eight telephone calls were not relevant, were more prejudicial than probative, or should be introduced at trial, if at all, through the direct testimony of the person purportedly making the statement rather than through hearsay reports by others. The judge determined also that several of the telephone calls consisted primarily of statements by others that the defendant did not adopt. He allowed admission of two of the calls as inferentially efforts by the […]