Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court weighs accident instruction and expert testimony disputes in homicide-related appeal
Summary
Counsel in Commonwealth v. Stephanie Fernandez (docket 24P732) debated whether the trial court erred by refusing an accident instruction alongside self-defense and whether expert witnesses exceeded proper bounds when testifying about battered-woman syndrome and credibility; the court took the case under advisement.
The appeals panel heard extended argument in Commonwealth v. Stephanie Fernandez (docket 24P732) on whether the trial court should have given an accident instruction, and whether expert testimony and the Commonwealth's rebuttal improperly invaded the jury's province or commented on credibility.
Defense counsel argued the record contained evidence of both accident and self-defense and that the absence of an accident instruction on manslaughter was prejudicial. Counsel described trial facts in which the defendant said she was "frozen" and "had no intention," and relied on authorities that, where any evidence of accident exists, an instruction must be given. "She was entitled to instruction because the commonwealth had to prove the absence of accident," counsel said.
On expert testimony, defense counsel contended the Commonwealth's expert improperly opined on credibility and on whether the defendant fit the profile of a battered woman in a way that in effect vouched for or against the defendant's abuse claims. "My opinion is that she was not abused. She's not a legitimate victim," defense counsel said quoting problems he attributed to the Commonwealth expert.
The Commonwealth told the court the jury received the proper instructions and that the defense had not preserved some objections for appellate review. Assistant District Attorney Donna Marie described the conviction as voluntary manslaughter and defended admission and use of expert testimony by both sides. The prosecutor said the Commonwealth's expert relied on police reports, grand jury minutes, interviews, cell-phone downloads and testing and that the defense had the opportunity to counter with its own expert.
The court asked questions about precedents that govern giving both accident and self-defense instructions, about the proper scope of expert testimony on domestic violence, and about preservation of objections. After argument the court recessed and later took the case under advisement; no ruling was announced at argument.
