Commonwealth v. Spray, 467 Mass. 456

Defendant Merle Spray Lenk was convicted of first‑degree murder on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty, with related convictions including assault with a dangerous weapon and weapon charges.
The jury’s verdict followed trial testimony showing stabbing of Sherylann Miller at a Clinton restaurant construction site by Lenk and involvement of his Oklahoma relatives.
Defense argued actual innocence and that sister‑in‑law Monica Spray was the real perpetrator; trial featured extensive methamphetamine history evidence on witnesses.
Pretrial motions included suppression of statements and a suppression ruling on a warrenless vehicle search; hearsay against other family members was challenged.
Two motions for new trial were denied; the first without a hearing based on recantations, the second on ineffective assistance regarding mental‑health defense.
On appellate review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, the court affirmed the conviction and denied relief under § 33E.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression of defendant’s statements	Commonwealth contends waiver and voluntariness supported, ruse not coercive.	Lenk argues statements were involuntary after invocation of counsel and police ruse.	Waiver voluntary; statements admissible; interrogation not coercive.
Joinder of charges	Commonwealth asserts relatedness not prejudicial; remaining charges independently proven.	Lenk claims misjoinder prejudiced defense and risked miscarriage of justice.	No prejudicial misjoinder; unrelated firearm charges did not prejudice trial.
Admission of hearsay identifying knife	Commonwealth asserts proper as extrajudicial identification or excited utterance.	Lenk contends identification testimony was improper excited utterance or hearsay.	Admissible as nonprejudicial or cumulative; no substantial miscarriage.
First motion for new trial denial without hearing	Commonwealth disputes necessity of an evidentiary hearing given credibility of affidavits and trial record.	Lenk asserts recantations required an evidentiary hearing.	No abuse of discretion; denial without hearing affirmed.
Ineffective assistance for failing to pursue mental‑state defense	Commonwealth argues counsel acted competently given lack of notice of mental illness indicators.	Lenk contends counsel failed to investigate plausible insanity/mind‑state defense.	No ineffective assistance; trial counsel's investigation reasonable under circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Contos, 435 Mass. 19 (Mass. 2001) (miranda invocation and statements suppression standards)
Commonwealth v. Meehan, 377 Mass. 552 (Mass. 1979) (totality of circumstances in voluntariness)
Commonwealth v. Durand, 457 Mass. 574 (Mass. 2010) (standard for voluntariness and waiver)
Commonwealth v. Scoggins, 439 Mass. 571 (Mass. 2003) (misleading interrogation tactics and voluntariness)
Commonwealth v. Roberio, 428 Mass. 278 (Mass. 1998) (insanity defense and counsel's duty to obtain expert evaluation)