Rodriguez appeals from his conviction and from the denial of his motion for a new trial.Īt trial Rodriguez contended that he lacked the specific intent to kill or rob because of his ingestion of drugs and alcohol just prior to the murder. In addition to this conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of felony-murder, he was also convicted of the underlying felony of armed robbery. Following a jury trial, Rolando Rodriguez was convicted of murdering the operator of a small convenience store during the course of a robbery. Powers, III, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth.ĬORDY, J. Chattopadhyay, Assistant District Attorney (John E. Quinlan, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on October 3, 2000, was heard by her. INDICTMENT found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 3, 1997. Ī criminal defendant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel Statement and closing argument, referring to the victim's husband and children, did not constitute improper appeals to the jurors' sympathies. Īt a murder trial, statements made by a prosecutor during opening Questioning of the defense expert and in closing argument were properly based on the facts in evidence and inferences permissibly drawn therefrom, and did not assume facts not in evidence. Īt a murder trial, certain statements made by the prosecutor during The prosecutor during cross-examination of the defense expert impermissibly elicited consciousness of guilt evidence, where the prosecutor immediately stopped the line of questioning in light of the judge's stated concern about consciousness of guilt evidence, where the witness never answered the question put to him regarding the defendant's behavior after the murder, and where the judge properly instructed the jury on consciousness of guilt in her charge. Ī criminal defendant failed to demonstrate that a question asked by Īt a murder trial, the prosecutor's failure to ask the defenseĮxpert whether opinions elicited during cross-examination were based on a "reasonable degree of medical certainty" did not render those opinions inadmissible, where the expert's responses conformed to the "consistent with" and "could have" language expressly condoned in Commonwealth v. Presumption of innocence, viewed as a whole, adequately informed the jury that the presumption of innocence remained throughout the entirety of the case further, the judge's instructions to the jury on the evaluation of expert witness testimony did not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defendant to prove the facts underlying the expert opinion and consequently the burden to prove that he lacked the specific intent to commit the charged offenses. Witness, Expert, Cross-examination.Īt a murder trial, the judge's instructions to the jury on the Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Instructions to jury, PresumptionsĪnd burden of proof, Argument by prosecutor, Comment by prosecutor, Assistance
Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, COWIN, SOSMAN, & CORDY, JJ.
0 kommentar(er)
