Posts tagged "Spray"

Commonwealth v. Spray (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-043-14)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑10095   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  QUILLIE MERLE SPRAY, SECOND.     Worcester.     November 8, 2013.  ‑  March 13, 2014. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.     Homicide.  Firearms.  Evidence, Credibility of witness, Firearm, Hearsay, Identification of inanimate object, Testimony of third party respecting identification, Insanity, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement.  Due Process of Law, Hearing.  Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel, Capital case, Defendant’s competency, Hearsay, Motion to suppress, New trial, State of mind, Trial of indictments together, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Witness.  Insanity.  Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel, Admissions and confessions.     Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on April 6, 2001.   Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by Peter W. Agnes, Jr., J., the cases were tried before him, and a motion for a new trial, filed on February 28, 2007, was considered by him; and a second motion for a new trial, filed on July 14, 2010, was heard by John S. McCann, J.     Kenneth I. Seiger for the defendant. Donna-Marie Haran, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     LENK, J.  The defendant appeals from his conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty, and from the denial of two motions for new trial.  The defendant, his brother, his sister-in-law, and his cousin worked together in a tiling business based in Oklahoma.  While working on a job at a restaurant in Clinton, the defendant stabbed and killed the general manager with no apparent provocation or motive.  The defense at trial was based on a theory of actual innocence and that the defendant’s sister-in-law was the true culprit. The defendant argues error in the denial of a motion to suppress statements; improper joinder of charges for trial; admission of certain hearsay evidence; and the denial of his first motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing.  The defendant also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a defense of lack of criminal responsibility, based on evidence that the defendant may have been suffering from a spontaneous recurrence of methamphetamine-induced psychosis at the time of the stabbing. We conclude that there was no error, and, after a review of the entire record pursuant to our responsibility under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, that there is […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 16, 2014 at 1:29 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,