Com. v. Rodriguez, U.
2163 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 18, 2017Background
- On January 26, 2013, after declining to buy marijuana, the victim and a companion were approached by Ulysses Rodriguez, who retrieved marijuana and a handgun from his SUV, shoved the drugs in the victim’s face, and provoked an altercation.
- Rodriguez fired warning shots and, after a physical confrontation in front of a club, shot the unarmed victim twice in the chest at very close range; the victim died.
- Forensic testimony showed one wound was contact or near-contact and the second was from near contact to several inches; wounds were seven inches apart.
- Rodriguez admitted shooting and asserted self-defense (including that shots were warnings and that the victim charged and bear-hugged him).
- A jury convicted Rodriguez of voluntary manslaughter; the court sentenced him to 10–20 years’ imprisonment (outside guidelines but within statutory limits). Rodriguez appealed raising three issues.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Rodriguez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency re: self-defense (judgment of acquittal) | Evidence disproved self-defense: Rodriguez initiated and escalated the encounter, shot warning shots, then used excessive force against an unarmed man. | Self-defense: he reasonably (subjectively) believed deadly force was necessary after the victim charged and bear-hugged him. | Affirmed. Viewing evidence in favor of the Commonwealth, the jury could find self-defense disproved; conviction for voluntary manslaughter sustained. |
| 2. Discretionary sentencing (excessive/failed mitigation) | Sentence warranted by aggravating factors: impact on victim, community danger, lack of remorse, prison misconduct, psychological evaluation, close-range intentional shooting, flight, illegal firearm possession. | Sentence excessive given mitigating factors, minimal prior record, and lack of aggravators. | Affirmed. No abuse of discretion; court considered PSI, testimony, and stated reasons for departing from guidelines. |
| 3. Omitted involuntary manslaughter instruction | No instruction required because evidence did not support reckless or grossly negligent killing; shootings were intentional at close range. | Requested involuntary manslaughter instruction; trial court’s refusal was error. | Waived (no contemporaneous objection) and meritless—record lacked evidence supporting involuntary manslaughter; intentional close-range shooting excluded that charge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Packer, 146 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for judgment of acquittal and sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782 (Pa. Super. 2014) (elements for disproving self-defense)
- Commonwealth v. Tilley, 595 A.2d 575 (Pa. 1991) (imperfect self-defense concept)
- Commonwealth v. Weston, 749 A.2d 458 (Pa. 2000) (voluntary manslaughter and unreasonable belief doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Pressley, 887 A.2d 220 (Pa. 2005) (preservation rule for objections to jury charges)
- Commonwealth v. Patton, 936 A.2d 1170 (Pa. Super. 2007) (when involuntary manslaughter instruction is required)
- Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291 (Pa. 2011) (close-range chest/abdomen shootings support homicide convictions beyond mere recklessness)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 83 A.3d 137 (Pa. 2013) (intent to kill may be inferred from use of deadly weapon on a vital organ)