![]() He began threatening the victim over the telephone. During this time, the defendant would grab the telephone from Wanda when Wanda was speaking with the victim. The defendant continued to stay with Wanda. The victim stayed with Rosa for some additional time and then stayed with Rosemarie Maldonado until January, 1995. Rosa's husband blocked the door and the defendant left. Shortly thereafter, the defendant knocked on Rosa's door and called out the victim's name. The next morning, Wanda went to Rosa's apartment. The defendant stayed at Wanda's apartment that night. ![]() She spent the night at her friend Rosa's apartment. He then approached her with a knife, yelling, "You have to come back to Puerto Rico with me because if you're not going to be mine, you're not going to be nobody elses either." The defendant's friend held him back and the victim ran from the apartment. ![]() The defendant became angry and hit the victim. The defendant said that he wanted to get back together with the victim, but the victim said that she no longer wanted to be with the defendant. On December 1, the defendant went to the apartment with a friend of his. The victim continued to spend time with the other man after she moved in with Wanda. In November, 1994, the victim returned to Massachusetts and moved in with Wanda. While visiting Wanda during the summer, the victim met a man and began to spend time with him. Wanda moved to an apartment in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in the summer of 1994. They had four daughters, including Wanda Rodriguez, the eldest. The defendant and the victim, Nydia Vega, lived together in Puerto Rico for twenty-two years. We conclude that there is no reason to grant the defendant a new trial or to enter a verdict of a lesser degree of guilt pursuant to our power under G. We affirm the conviction of murder in the first degree. He also argues that the judge erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. On appeal, heĪrgues that the judge erred in disallowing his peremptory challenge of the last juror seated on the panel. The defendant, Edwin Rodriguez, appeals from his conviction of murder in the first degree by deliberate premeditation and by extreme atrocity or cruelty. Gregory L Massing, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.ĪBRAMS, J. Brandt, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. INDICTMENT found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 8, 1995. The jury on voluntary manslaughter, where the evidence did not support a finding that the defendant had "suddenly" discovered the infidelity of his spouse. Īt a murder trial, the evidence did not warrant an instruction to "pretext" in disallowing a peremptory challenge to a female juror by defense counsel, nonetheless adequately expressed his finding that defense counsel's proffered gender-neutral explanation was insufficient, in circumstances in which the record supported the judge's finding that the defendant was challenging women jurors solely on the basis of gender. Recognized that defense counsel was exercising his peremptory challenges to exclude women and then required defense counsel to state gender-neutral reasons for further challenges, the judge correctly disallowed the defendant's ninth and final challenge to a female juror upon counsel's stated reason that "the defendant (did] not like her looks." Ī judge at a criminal trial, although not using the words "sham" or Where, at the empanelment of the jury at a murder trial, the judge ![]() Present: MARSHALL, C.J., ABRAMS, IRELAND, SPINA, & COWIN, JJ ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |