Commonwealth v. Ortega, 106 N.E.3d 675

George Ortega was convicted of first-degree murder (deliberate premeditation) for the May 24, 2012 shooting death of Steven Fuentes; jury rejected a joint-venture theory as to a codefendant.
During voir dire, the prosecutor used peremptory strikes against multiple African‑American venire members; defendant objected under Commonwealth v. Soares/Batson principles to several strikes, including juror no. 78 (female African‑American).
The judge had earlier found a prima facie Soares pattern as to an earlier strike but, when juror no. 78 was challenged, she declined to find a prima facie showing, relying principally on the fact that at least one woman of color had already been seated.
After trial, Ortega requested jury instructions on self‑defense and voluntary manslaughter (excessive force theory); the judge denied both requested instructions and instructed only on first‑ and second‑degree murder.
Ballistics and witness testimony produced conflicting accounts about who first displayed or fired a gun; some testimony could support a reasonable belief by Ortega that he faced imminent deadly force, and that he was jogging backwards when shots began.
The SJC held the judge erred in (1) failing to require a race‑neutral explanation for the peremptory strike of juror no. 78 and (2) refusing to instruct the jury on self‑defense and voluntary manslaughter; Ortega’s convictions were vacated and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge abused discretion by not requiring prosecutor to explain peremptory strike of juror no. 78	Commonwealth: no prima facie showing because at least one female African‑American was already seated	Ortega: pattern of excluding African‑American jurors; judge should have required race‑neutral explanation	Reversed: judge abused discretion by placing undue weight on seated juror composition and failing to consider all relevant Batson/Soares factors
Whether trial judge erred by denying instructions on self‑defense and voluntary manslaughter (excessive force)	Commonwealth: evidence did not warrant self‑defense/manslaughter instructions	Ortega: any view of evidence could support instruction because testimony suggested victim displayed a gun, may have fired first, and defendant was backing away	Reversed: evidence, viewed in defendant’s favor, met low threshold to warrant instructions on self‑defense and voluntary manslaughter

Commonwealth v. Lopes, 478 Mass. 593 (discusses race‑based peremptory challenge standards under art. 12)
Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461 (1979) (establishes Massachusetts test for improper peremptory strikes)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race‑based peremptory challenges under Equal Protection)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 Mass. 307 (burden‑shifting analysis and factors for prima facie showing in peremptory‑strike challenges)
Commonwealth v. Issa, 466 Mass. 1 (presumption of proper use of peremptory strikes and when a single strike may suffice for prima facie showing)
Commonwealth v. Pike, 428 Mass. 393 (low evidentiary threshold for self‑defense instruction; Commonwealth must disprove self‑defense beyond reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Harrington, 379 Mass. 446 (elements of self‑defense and duty to avoid combat/retreat principles)
Commonwealth v. Benoit, 452 Mass. 212 (factors to consider in determining pattern of exclusion and burden shifting)