Posts tagged "1005617"

Commonwealth v. Felix (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-056-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   SJC-11692   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  NATALIO FELIX.       Worcester.     December 19, 2016. – April 12, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, & Gaziano, JJ. [1]     Homicide.  Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury, Assistance of counsel, Capital case.       Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 21, 2011.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Bruce R. Henry, J.; the case was tried before Kathe M. Tuttman, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on March 16, 2015, was heard by her.     Leslie W. O’Brien for the defendant. Jane A. Sullivan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     BOTSFORD, J.  The defendant, Natalio Felix, appeals from his conviction of murder in the first degree and the denial of his motion for a new trial.  The defendant was convicted of the murder of his wife, Janice Santos, on the theory of deliberate premeditation. The defendant’s principal arguments on appeal concern the absence of any instruction on manslaughter; he claims that although he admittedly killed his wife, the trial evidence, and particularly his own trial testimony, entitled him to instructions on both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and that for several reasons, the absence of these instructions constituted error requiring reversal of his conviction and a new trial.  The defendant also seeks relief pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E.  We affirm the defendant’s conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial, and decline to grant relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Background.  We summarize facts that the jury could have found, and reserve discussion of additional evidence in connection with the issues raised.  In May of 2011, the defendant and the victim had been married for a decade or more.[2]  They jointly owned a home in Worcester where they lived with their son and daughter, aged ten and eleven, and the victim’s sixteen year old son from a prior relationship.  The defendant and the victim both held jobs outside the home, the defendant as a truck driver and the victim at the Superior Court in Worcester County, but the defendant quit his job around this time, and the couple argued frequently, often about money.  Their relationship, however, contained no history of physical violence. During that month, following an argument with his stepson, […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 12, 2017 at 10:20 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,