Commonwealth v. Spencer, 465 Mass. 32

Defendant is charged with first-degree murder and weapons offenses as an armed career criminal.
Commonwealth seeks to introduce three police interviews (July 29, July 30, Aug 3, 2006) and eight jailhouse calls (Aug 2–14, 2006).
Trial judge sequentially excluded portions of interviews and six jail calls on grounds of irrelevance, prejudice, or as unauthentic hearsay via third-party statements.
Two pretrial motions in limine to exclude the statements and calls were denied by other judges; subsequent extraordinary relief allowed interlocutory appeal.
Commonwealth argues error in the appraisal of admissibility and prejudicial effect; court reviews rulings de novo as to law and for palpable error as to evidence.
Court affirms the rulings: excluding certain statements and jailhouse calls, and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pretrial limine rulings were proper.	Commonwealth contends rulings were misapplied; evidence was critical.	Lenk argues rulings favor probative value over prejudice; not improper.	Rulings affirmed; proper balance of probative value and prejudice.
Whether unequivocal denials render statements inadmissible as party-opponent evidence.	Commonwealth asserts denials are admissible as admissions.	Lenk argues denials are inadmissible hearsay when unequivocal.	Exclusions for unequivocal denials upheld; denials not admissible as party-opponent statements.
Whether jailhouse calls were improperly excluded given their probative value.	Commonwealth views calls as probative of motive and consciousness of guilt.	Lenk finds prejudicial effect outweighs probative value.	No abuse of discretion; calls excluded or limited appropriately.
Whether exclusion of evidence would terminate the prosecution given alternative evidence.	Commonwealth maintains excluded material is critical to identity, motive, consciousness.	Lenk notes ample other evidence supports trial.	Exclusion would not terminate prosecution; ample remaining evidence exists.

Commonwealth v. Womack, 457 Mass. 268 (Mass. 2010) (hearsay rule for accusations and denials; denials inadmissible as part of party-opponent evidence)
Commonwealth v. Diaz, 453 Mass. 266 (Mass. 2009) (inconsistent denials cannot be admitted as consciousness evidence)
Commonwealth v. Bonds, 445 Mass. 821 (Mass. 2006) (admissibility balancing of probative value vs prejudice; standard for limitations)
Commonwealth v. Emeny, 463 Mass. 138 (Mass. 2012) (strictures on use of police questions and third-party accusations in interviews)
Commonwealth v. Santos, 463 Mass. 273 (Mass. 2012) (police questions and accusations are not admissible for their truth)
Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423 (Mass. 2004) (recording defendant's statements to ensure accuracy; does not render all portions admissible)
Commonwealth v. Rosa, 422 Mass. 18 (Mass. 1996) (consideration of prejudice and possible jury confusion in weighing probative value)
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 401 Mass. 133 (Mass. 1987) (interlocutory appeal standards when pretrial rulings threaten prosecution)
Ray v. Commonwealth, 463 Mass. 1 (Mass. 2012) (courts may review judge's thinking out loud versus final written rulings)
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (interlocutory appeals and midtrial rulings; discretion guards against premature termination)