Opinion
No. 2001-000143.
June 22, 2007.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
INTRODUCTION
In 2003, Quillie Merle Spray, II ("the defendant") was convicted of the first-degree murder of Sherylann Miller and is now serving a life sentence. He has filed a notice of appeal, which has yet to be docketed or considered. This matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30. The court has examined the trial transcript and considered the comprehensive legal memoranda submitted by both sides. For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion is DENIED.
In this opinion, Quillie Spray, will be called "the defendant" The title "Mr. Spray" refers to Gary Spray.
I was the trial judge in the case.
FACTS
The defendant and his brother Gary Spray ("Mr. Spray") owned a tiling company based in Oklahoma. In December 2000, under a subcontract with Boss Contractors, Inc., their company had a job to lay tile in a new fast food restaurant that was being constructed in Clinton, Massachusetts. The defendant began work on this project on December 8, 2000. Kevin Somero ("Mr. Somero"), one of the supervisors with Boss Contractors, Inc., observed the defendant at work on that day with a green knife next to him.
The following day the defendant continued to lay tile in the restaurant. Mr. Spray, Monica Spray ("Mrs. Spray") — the defendant's sister-in-law, and Thomas Barron ("Mr. Barron") — the defendant's cousin, were working there as well. The four of them were laying tile in the front of the restaurant. Also present was Sherylann Miller ("Ms. Miller"), the manager of the restaurant, who was in the back of the establishment accepting applications from prospective employees.
Mr. Spray, Mrs. Spray, and Mr. Barron testified that around 4:00 p.m., they heard a commotion coming from the back of the restaurant. Mrs. Spray testified that she heard Ms. Miller shouting "no don't" and "stop." Then she turned around and saw the defendant fighting with Ms. Miller, dragging her and punching her neck and back. At one point, Mrs. Spray yelled, "It's Merle" (Merle is the defendant's nickname). Mr. Spray then ran to the back of the restaurant, grabbed the defendant and pushed him against a wall. Mr. Spray said to the defendant "what the fuck are you doing?" The defendant responded, "Someone else done it" and said "Let's get this tile laid so we can get out of here and go to the house." Mr. Barron also testified that he heard people shouting in the back of the restaurant and saw the defendant with his arms around a woman. He observed this woman fall to the floor, bleeding. Then he saw Mr. Spray push the defendant against a wall.
It is unclear exactly how Quillie responsed to Gary's question. On direct examination, Gary testified that he said "We'll tell them someone else done it;" while on cross examination, Gary testified that Quillie said, "Someone else done it."
Mrs. Spray ran to a nearby gas station and told an employee there to call the police. The employee called 911, and several police officers came to the scene. Officer Earl Cadoret, the first to arrive on the scene, testified that he saw Mrs. Spray running towards him screaming and yelling. He also saw Mr. Spray and the defendant step outside the building.
Two officers conducted a protective sweep of the building and found Ms. Miller on the floor bleeding profusely from the head. Then medical personnel arrived on the scene. Ms. Miller was transported to Clinton Hospital and later to UMASS Medical Center in Worcester. She died the next day around 2:00 a.m. from the injuries suffered during the attack. The medial examiner testified that she had sustained six stab wounds to her head and neck and had bruising on her body.
Other police officers arrived on the scene while the defendant, Mrs. Spray, Mr. Spray, and Mr. Barron were outside the restaurant. Officer Karl Schmidt testified that Mrs. Spray was extremely agitated and yelling "He stabbed her" while pointing at the defendant. Mr. Barron also exclaimed "He did it" while gesturing towards the defendant. Mr. Spray was yelling at the defendant "What the fuck did you do that for?" The remarks of the eye-witnesses were admitted for their truth as excited utterances.
Detective Edward Brescia placed handcuffs on the defendant and ordered him into the police cruiser. He then asked Mr. Spray about the location of the weapon. Mr. Spray responded that the defendant had the knife, and it was green with a blade of about five inches. Detective Brescia obtained further statements from Mrs. Spray, Mr. Spray, and Mr. Barron, all naming the defendant as the person who stabbed Ms. Miller.
Mrs. Spray, Mr. Spray, and Mr. Barron were then transported to the police station in separate vehicles. They were placed in separate rooms and asked to write down on a sheet of paper provided to them a description of the events that took place in the restaurant. Mr. Spray stated that he had observed the defendant place his hand in a bucket of water following the stabbing and believed that the murder weapon could be found there. Officers then located that bucket at the scene and retrieved a knife from it. The knife was transported to the police station were Mr. Spray identified it as belonging to the defendant.
At the police station, after booking, the defendant was interviewed twice about the events that transpired at the restaurant. Both times, he stated that he did harm hurt Ms. Miller in any way. He told the police that he saw her fall and was bending over her to check on her, when Mr. Spray asked what he was doing. During the second interview, he gave the statement "If I did do it, I didn't mean to kill her." Also at the station, the clothes that the defendant was wearing at the restaurant were taken from him. Testing revealed that the shirt that he was wearing had the victim's blood on it.
Further testing was done on the green knife recovered from the scene. A strand of hair found on it belonged to the victim, and a piece of fabric found on it matched a jacket that the victim was wearing at the time of her death. No fingerprints were found on the knife.
The defendant testified in his own defense at trial. He stated that he never observed any stab wounds on the victim or cuts from which she was bleeding. He stated that he saw the victim fall over and then bent over her to check on her. While standing over Ms. Miller, Mr. Spray approached and asked what he was doing. Then the defendant suggested that they call the police.
The defendant also used the following evidence to impeach the credibility of Mr. Spray and Mrs. Spray. Mrs. Spray had a fifteen-year history of drug use and admitted that she had experienced hallucinations. Mr. Spray had a twenty-three year history of drug use, prior convictions, was currently on probation, and was fearful of being sent back to jail. Mr. Spray also had made prior inconsistent statements regarding the stabbing. He told the police that he merely saw the defendant standing over Ms. Miller while she was lying on the floor.
Now, by way of affidavit, Mrs. Spray and Mr. Spray make the following statements. Mrs. Spray states that she did not hear the defendant fighting with, attacking, or stabbing Ms. Miller. She says that she saw the victim lying on the ground and jumped to the conclusion that the defendant had hurt her. She states that she was high on methamphetamine at the time and does not remember the events accurately. Finally, she says that someone in the District Attorney's Office coached her towards giving answers of "yes" or "no" to the defense attorney's questions. Mr. Spray states that he did not observe the defendant hold a knife in his hand on the days prior to the stabbing. He claims that the defendant was in the bathroom at or around the time of the stabbing. Also he states that the defendant did not wield a knife, beat, or stab Ms. Miller. Further, Mr. Spray says that Clinton Police officers told him that he would go to jail if he did not provide them with a name and that the Assistant District Attorney told him that he would serve seven years for perjury if he changed the statement that he gave to the police. Joseph Moriarty, Jr., who prosecuted this case, denies, by way of affidavit, that he ever gave Mr. Spray this information.
DISCUSSION I. Standard for a New Trial
A trial judge may grant a new trial "at any time if it appears that justice may not have been done." Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b). The standard is intentionally broad and therefore, the disposition of the motion for a new trial is left to the discretion of the motion judge. Commonwealth v. Schand, 420 Mass. 783, 787 (1995); Commonwealth v. Moore, 408 Mass. 117, 125 (1990). The judge is "to apply the standard set forth in Rule 30(b) rigorously and should only grant such a motion if the defendant comes forward with a credible reason which outweighs the risk of prejudice to the Commonwealth." Commonwealth v. Wheeler, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 631, 635-636 (2001), citing Commonwealth v. Fanelli, 412 Mass. 497, 504 (1992). . Additionally, the decision of whether to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a new trial rests with the motion judge. Commonwealth v. Stewart, 383 Mass. 253, 257 (1981). A judge "need only proceed to evidentiary hearing where a substantial issue is raised by the motion or affidavits and is supported by a substantial evidentiary showing." Commonwealth v. Lopez, 426 Mass. 657, 663 (1998), citing Stewart, 383 Mass. at 260. "In determining whether a `substantial issue' meriting an evidentiary hearing under Rule 30 has been raised, [a judge looks] not only to the seriousness of the issue asserted, but also to the adequacy of the defendant's showing on the issue raised." Stewart, 383 Mass. at 257-258.
II. Recantation Affidavits
A. Credibility
The defendant argues that, based on the affidavits of Mrs. Spray and Mr. Spray, this court should grant him to a new trial. He contends that their new statements, contradicting their trial testimony, amount to newly discovered evidence that casts a reasonable doubt on his culpability for this crime, and therefore merit a new trial.
Suspicion that a prosecution witness lied in his or her testimony "warrants serious consideration from the motion judge." Commonwealth v. Raymond, 432 Mass. 382, 397 (1997) (citations omitted). However, it "is not required as a matter of law that a new trial be granted simply on the basis of recantation" of a witness. Commonwealth v. Pina, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 853, 854 (1973). "The determination whether such evidence warrants a new trial is left to the sound discretion of the motion judge." Commonwealth v. Jones, 432 Mass. 623, 633 (2000). Further, the judge has the authority to rule on the credibility on recantation affidavits. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Lopez, 433 Mass. 406, 415-416 (2001); Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303,310-311 (1986).
The court finds that the affidavits of Mr. Spray and Mrs. Spray are not believable. First, they contradict the accounts of the events that they gave repeatedly throughout the proceedings. These two witnesses gave statements that were consistent with their trial testimonies first to the officers who arrived at the scene of the crime, and next at the police station. Second, there is a significant lapse of time between the time when they first gave statements about the stabbing and their recanting. Nearly six years passed between the time of the crime and the date of their affidavits. Third, their new statements contradict much of the other evidence presented at trial. Mr. Barron testified for the prosecution, stating that he saw the defendant with his arms around Ms. Miller and then saw Ms. Miller bleeding and falling to the floor. Mr. Somero testified that he had seen the green knife lying next to the defendant the day before the stabbing. The defendant gave an incriminating statement at the police statement and the shirt that he was wearing was stained with the victim's blood. I have carefully considered the recantation affidavits. I have carefully reviewed my trial notes. Based on my knowledge of the case as the trial judge, including in particular, my observations of the testimony of the police and civilian witnesses during both hearings on the pretrial motions and at the trial, I do not attach any credit to the affidavits of recantation by Mrs. Spray and Mr. Spray. See Commonwealth v. Jones, supra, 432 Mass. at 634, citing Commonwealth v. Leate, 361 Mass. 347, 349-50 (1972). Upon a consideration of the entire case, including the recantation affidavits, I am not left with any reservation other than that the conviction in this case was just. See Commonwealth v. Robertson, 357 Mass. 559, 562 (1970).
Because the court rejects these two affidavits as not credible, it finds that the defendant has not produced any new evidence that casts doubt on the jury's verdict. Therefore, he has not met the standard for granting a new trial. See Jones, supra, 432 Mass. at 633.
B. The Contents of the Affidavits
Even if the court accepts Mr. Spray and Mrs. Spray's affidavits as accurate, the defendant is not entitled to a new trial. A defendant arguing for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence must show that the evidence "casts real doubt on the justice of the conviction." Commonwealth v. Shuman, 445 Mass. 268, 272 (2002) (citations omitted). Essentially, the defendant must demonstrate "a substantial risk that the jury would have reached a different result if the evidence had been admitted at trial." Commonwealth v. Trung Chi Truong, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 668, 673 (1993). Here, the evidence against the defendant even without the trial testimonies of Mr. Spray and Mrs. Spray was solid. Mrs. Spray, Mr. Spray, and Mr. Barron, all in excited states, identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime, and this evidence would have been admissible even if Mr. Spray and Mrs. Spray had not testified. See Commonwealth v. King, 436 Mass. 252, 256 (discussing the presumptive reliability of excited utterances). The defendant's shirt had the victim's blood it, which makes his contention that he did not see any injuries on her not plausible. The knife used as the murder weapon was seen near the defendant a day before the stabbing. Mr. Barron testified (and has not recanted) that he saw the defendant with his arms around the victim before she fell to the floor bleeding. The exculpatory value of Mrs. Spray and Mr. Spray's proclamations is slight. Six years after the event, they state they that did not see the defendant attack and stab Ms. Miller, and Mr. Spray denies seeing the murder weapon in the defendant's possession. However, with the other evidence of the defendant's guilt, the court is convinced that the information in the affidavits would not "have been a significant factor in the jury's deliberations." Shuman, 445 Mass. at. 272.
Moreover, the information elicited during cross-examination further diminishes the value of Mrs. Spray and Mr. Spray affidavits. Both witnesses were extensively cross-examined. Mrs. Spray admitted her history of drug use and her past experience with hallucinations. Mr. Spray also admitted to being a long time drug user and acknowledged several inconsistencies in his statements about the stabbing. The jury also learned that Mr. Spray was on probation and had a criminal record. Even with this impeaching before it, the jury still opted to convict the defendant. It is unlikely that a jury would reach a different conclusion merely because six years after the stabbing, Mrs. Spray and Mr. Spray now profess a different version of the events. As such, the recantations do not constitute sufficient grounds for a new trial. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Cash, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 812, 817-818 (2005).
ORDER
For the above reasons, the defendant's Motion for a New Trial is DENIED.