Scribd
Upload
304 views2 pages

Cara Rintala Vs State

Supreme Judicial Court denies motion by Cara Rintala attorney David Hoose for relief against a 3rd trial using rule against "double jeopardy." “We are very pleased with the Supreme Judicial Court’s swift and clear decision, which reaffirms once again that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Cara Rintala of murder,” said First Assistant District Attorney Steven E. Gagne, who is prosecuting the case together with Assistant District Attorney Jennifer H. Suhl. The parties are due back in Court on Wednesday, January 27, 2016, at 2 p.m. for a status conference, at which time the Commonwealth intends to ask the Court to schedule the case for trial.

Uploaded by

Larry Kelley
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
304 views2 pages

Cara Rintala Vs State

Supreme Judicial Court denies motion by Cara Rintala attorney David Hoose for relief against a 3rd trial using rule against "double jeopardy." “We are very pleased with the Supreme Judicial Court’s swift and clear decision, which reaffirms once again that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Cara Rintala of murder,” said First Assistant District Attorney Steven E. Gagne, who is prosecuting the case together with Assistant District Attorney Jennifer H. Suhl. The parties are due back in Court on Wednesday, January 27, 2016, at 2 p.m. for a status conference, at which time the Commonwealth intends to ask the Court to schedule the case for trial.

Uploaded by

Larry Kelley
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
CARA RINTALA vs. COMMONWEALTH. January 14, 2016. Homicide. Practice, Criminal, Indictment, Double jeopardy. Constitutional Law, Double jeopardy. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Cara Rintala appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying her petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Rintala has been charged with murder in the first degree in the death of her wife. Two jury trials on this charge have taken place in the Superior Court, each ending in a mistrial after the jury were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. After the second trial, Rintala moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that retrial was barred by double jeopardy principles because the evidence presented at her second trial was insufficient to warrant a conviction. The judge, who had presided at both trials, denied the motion. Rintala's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition followed. We affirm the judgment. We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of the second trial, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676- 677 (1979). Without detailing the evidence that was presented over numerous days of trial, we agree with the single justice that the evidence against Rintala was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that she strangled the victim in the basement of their house. Based on the state of the victim's body at the time she was found by first responders, the testimony of the Commonwealth's medical expert, the activity on the victim's cellular telephone (and the abrupt stoppage thereof), and Rintale’s own statements, the jury could rationally conclude

You might also like