NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 

23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, 

as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties 

and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's 

decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire 

court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. 

A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 

2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted 

above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 

n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

22-P-209

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

DELANEAU PIERRE.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of murder, 

G. L. c. 265, § 1, on the theories of murder in the second 

degree (second degree murder), and felony-murder in the second 

degree (second degree felony-murder). The jury also convicted 

the defendant of unlawful possession of a firearm (which served 

as the predicate for the murder conviction on the basis of 

second degree felony-murder), pursuant to G. L. c. 269, 

§ 10 (a), unlawful possession of a loaded firearm pursuant to 

G. L. c. 269, § 10 (n), and unlawful possession of ammunition 

pursuant to G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h).1 The possessory convictions 

were dismissed at sentencing based on the judge's understanding 

1 The defendant was acquitted on charges of murder in the first 

degree (under theories of both premeditation and felony-murder) 

and armed assault with intent to rob.
2

of the felony-murder merger doctrine.2 See Commonwealth v. 

Foster, 471 Mass. 236, 244 (2015) (underlying felonies dismissed 

when "conviction of the predicate felony is duplicative as a 

lesser included offense of the homicide").

In this consolidated appeal, the defendant appeals from his 

murder conviction and from the denial of his motion to set aside 

the verdict or for a new trial and motion for reconsideration of 

that motion. After oral argument occurred in this appeal, the 

Supreme Judicial Court issued Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 

Mass. 666 (2023) (Guardado I). We accordingly requested 

supplemental memoranda from the parties as to whether Guardado I

was implicated in this appeal and, if so, how. The parties 

responded by jointly requesting a stay to permit the 

Commonwealth to pursue a motion for reconsideration of Guardado

I in the Supreme Judicial Court. We allowed that motion, and 

the appeal was accordingly stayed until the Supreme Judicial 

2 The judge's understanding of the merger doctrine was incorrect. 

Because the defendant was convicted of murder on multiple 

theories, the underlying possession convictions should not have 

been dismissed. See Commonwealth v. Foster, 471 Mass. 236, 244 

(2015) ("where, as here, a defendant is convicted of murder in 

the first degree on a theory of felony-murder, and also is 

convicted of murder in the first degree on another theory, and

where we affirm the convictions on both theories, the conviction 

of the predicate felony is not duplicative, and the felony 

conviction stands"). However, the Commonwealth did not object 

below, nor does it argue error in this regard on appeal. The 

issue is accordingly waived.
3

Court issued Commonwealth v. Guardado, 493 Mass. 1 (2023) 

(Guardado II), at which point we again solicited additional 

memoranda from the parties. In response, the parties have both 

taken the position that, in light of Guardado I and Guardado II, 

the evidence failed to support the conviction of murder on the 

theory of second degree felony-murder because the Commonwealth 

did not introduce any evidence of lack of licensure. We agree.

What remains of this appeal, therefore, are the defendant's 

arguments vis-à-vis his conviction under the theory of second 

degree murder. Those arguments are: (1) whether racial 

discrimination factored into jury selection or composition; (2)

whether the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find 

beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with malice; and (3)

whether trial counsel's failure to ask that the jury be 

instructed on manslaughter constituted ineffective assistance of 

counsel warranting a new trial.3 We affirm the second degree 

murder conviction.

1. Jury composition. The defendant argues that racial 

discrimination affected the composition of the jury in two ways

3 Because the evidence of murder on the theory of second degree 

felony-murder cannot support the conviction as a consequence of 

Guardado I and Guardado II, there is no need to consider the 

defendant's argument of instructional error on that theory.
4

and that his conviction must be reversed as a result.4 The

defendant first argues that the judge erred in allowing the 

prosecutor to exercise a peremptory challenge to juror no. 74, 

who was Black, without going beyond the first step of the 

Batson-Soares inquiry. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 

(1986); Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461, cert. denied, 444 

U.S. 881 (1979), overruled in part by Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 

485 Mass. 491, 511 (2020). More specifically, the defendant 

claims that he satisfied his burden to establish a prima facie 

showing of discriminatory purpose and, accordingly, the judge 

erroneously terminated the Batson-Soares inquiry prematurely, 

resulting in structural error. In the alternative, the 

defendant argues that we should abandon the first prong of the 

Batson-Soares framework entirely. This argument has fairly 

recently been rejected by the Supreme Judicial Court. See 

Sanchez, 485 Mass. at 513-514 ("we do not join those States that 

have eliminated entirely the first step of Batson, . . . in 

accordance with our long-standing jurisprudence and the Federal 

standard").5 Secondly, the defendant argues that the judge 

4 The defendant does not challenge the process by which the 

venire was constituted, nor does he challenge the racial 

composition of the venire.

5 This court has "no power to alter, overrule or decline to 

follow the holding of cases the Supreme Judicial Court has 

decided." Commonwealth v. Dube, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 476, 485 

(2003).
5

should have allowed the defendant's request that the only Black 

juror be removed from the random drawing to select alternate 

jurors before deliberations.

a. Juror no. 74. Jury selection took place over two days

using the following process. The judge first posed broad 

questions to the entire venire. The judge then called 

individual prospective jurors to the sidebar, where the judge 

conducted individual voir dire following up on any responses 

elicited during the general questioning. The judge also 

permitted counsel to ask follow-up questions. The judge then 

determined whether to excuse the juror on his own initiative 

and, if he did not do so, allowed the parties to challenge the 

potential juror for cause. Once the jury box was filled with 

qualified jurors, the judge allowed the parties to exercise 

peremptory challenges. This process was then repeated as 

necessary to fill any vacancies created by the exercise of 

peremptory challenges.

The prospective juror at the heart of the defendant's 

Batson-Soares challenge was juror no. 74. During her individual 

voir dire, juror no. 74 acknowledged that she had suffered from 

a drug addiction and that her son had been tried and recently 

acquitted in the same court house that served as the venue for 

the defendant's trial. Despite that, she stated that she could 
6

be a fair and impartial juror. The prosecutor moved to 

challenge juror no. 74 for cause, stating:

"she has related to the court a very fresh case right here 

in the Superior Court prosecuted by my office. I would 

suggest that she certainly would harbor some bias or 

prejudice towards the prosecuting office that brought her 

son to trial in Brockton Superior Court, particularly where 

it just happened Tuesday, presumably last week, here in 

this very courthouse."

The defendant responded that juror no. 74 was the only Black 

juror, and that "her answers were all that she could be fair and 

impartial to both sides." The judge declined to excuse juror 

no. 74 for cause, but he remarked that "certainly the 

Commonwealth can exercise a peremptory" at the appropriate time. 

When that time arrived, the prosecutor as foretold peremptorily 

challenged juror no. 74. Defense counsel objected, stating:

"I want to make a challenge to 74. I know there's a 

separate reason for this but I think that her answers 

stand. Her answers are that she could be fair and 

impartial. I think there's three, but I think under Soares

I can make a challenge even though there's only one."

The judge responded that he "[didn't] think that's a pattern," 

and dismissed juror no. 74.

"The use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective 

jurors solely because of bias presumed to derive from their 

membership in discrete community groups is prohibited both by 

art. 12 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights] and the 

equal protection clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution]" (citations omitted). Commonwealth
7

v. Ortega, 480 Mass. 603, 605 (2018). The exercise of a 

peremptory challenge is presumed proper; to rebut that 

presumption, "the challenging party 'must make out a prima facie 

case that it was impermissibly based on race or other protected 

status by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives 

rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.'" Commonwealth

v. Kozubal, 488 Mass. 575, 580 (2021), quoting Commonwealth v. 

Jackson, 486 Mass. 763, 768 (2021). In some circumstances, "a

single peremptory challenge may be sufficient to rebut the 

presumption, especially where 'the challenged juror is the only 

member of his or her protected class in the entire venire.'" 

Commonwealth v. Issa, 466 Mass. 1, 9 (2013), quoting 

Commonwealth v. Prunty, 462 Mass. 295, 306 n.15 (2012). "In 

determining whether a prima facie case of discriminatory purpose 

has been established, a judge may consider all relevant 

circumstances." Commonwealth v. Carter, 488 Mass. 191, 196 

(2021), citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-97. These circumstances 

include:

"(1) the number and percentage of group members who have 

been excluded from jury service due to the exercise of a 

peremptory challenge; (2) any evidence of disparate 

questioning or investigation of prospective jurors; (3) any 

similarities and differences between excluded jurors and 

those, not members of the protected group, who have not 

been challenged (for example, age, educational level, 

occupation, or previous interactions with the criminal 

justice system); (4) whether the defendant or the victim 

are members of the same protected group; and (5) the 

composition of the seated jury" (footnotes omitted).
8

Sanchez, 485 Mass. at 512. Once the presumption has been 

rebutted, "the burden shifts to the party exercising the 

challenge to provide a 'group-neutral' explanation for it. The 

judge must then determine whether the explanation is both 

'adequate' and 'genuine.'" (Citation omitted.) Commonwealth v. 

Oberle, 476 Mass. 539, 545 (2017). Although "the possibility of 

an objective, group-neutral explanation for the strike," 

Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 Mass. 307, 322 (2017), is more 

properly applicable at the second and third stages of the 

Batson-Soares framework, "a readily apparent, group-neutral 

reason that already has been raised by the striking party in a 

for-cause challenge . . . might cut against an inference of 

discriminatory intent." Sanchez, supra at 513 n.17. "An 

appellate court reviews the trial judge's decision to allow the 

juror to be struck for abuse of discretion." Jones, supra at

319-320.

The defendant correctly argues that he was not required to 

prove a pattern of exclusion to establish a prima facie case 

that a discriminatory purpose was behind the Commonwealth's

peremptory challenge to juror no. 74.6 See Kozubal, 488 Mass. at 

6 The judge's explanation for ending the Batson-Soares inquiry at 

the first stage on the ground that he didn't "think that's a 

pattern" does not reflect current jurisprudence. The specific 

language of Soares, 377 Mass. at 490, requiring defendants to 
9

580 ("The issue is not whether there is a pattern of improper 

challenges, but whether a single challenge is based 

impermissibly on a juror's membership in a protected group"). 

And we acknowledge that certain circumstances surrounding juror 

no. 74 could support an inference of discriminatory intent, 

including that the defendant and juror no. 74 are both Black,

and that juror no. 74 was the only Black prospective juror 

seated in the jury box when the peremptory challenge was 

exercised.

But even at the first stage of Batson-Soares, the judge was

permitted to consider the prosecutor's previously stated raceneutral explanation for seeking to have juror no. 74 struck for 

cause: the same district attorney's office had tried juror no. 

74's son in the same court house only one week before the 

defendant's trial, and the prosecutor was concerned the juror

would hold resulting bias against the prosecutor's office. The 

defendant does not now, nor did he contemporaneously, contest 

show that "a pattern of conduct has developed whereby several 

prospective jurors who have been challenged peremptorily are 

members of a discrete group" to make a prima facie case was 

retired six years after the defendant's trial. See Sanchez, 485 

Mass. at 511. Nevertheless, the Supreme Judicial Court 

explained in Sanchez that it had previously "made the two-part 

first-step inquiry of Soares, which predated Batson, conform to 

Federal usage," and explicitly adopted the Federal language: 

"the presumption of propriety is rebutted when the totality of 

the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory 

purpose" (quotation and citation omitted). Sanchez, 485 Mass. 

at 511.
10

the legitimacy of the prosecutor's given explanation. Moreover,

the record in no way suggests that juror no. 74 faced any 

disparate questioning or inquiry during individual voir dire, or 

that she was treated differently from any other prospective 

juror with a similar experience or connection with the district 

attorney's office.7 In addition, juror no. 74 was not the only 

Black member of the venire.

Considering the relevant circumstances in their totality, 

the judge did not abuse his discretion by ending the BatsonSoares inquiry at the first stage, thereby allowing the 

prosecutor's peremptory challenge to juror no. 74 without first 

repeating her race-neutral reasons for doing so.

b. Juror no. 34. General Laws c. 234A, § 68

"requires that, to select an alternate juror, 'the court 

shall direct the clerk to place the names of all of the 

available jurors except the foreperson into a box or drum 

and to select at random the names of the appropriate number 

of jurors necessary to reduce the jury to the proper number 

of members required for deliberation in the particular 

case.'"8

7 Arguing otherwise, the defendant points to juror no. 24, who

the prosecutor did not challenge despite her brother's drugrelated arrest. Juror no. 24's brother, however, was arrested 

twenty-five years before the defendant's trial. She was not 

similarly situated to juror no. 74, whose son had been acquitted

a week prior. 

8 The judge prudently empanelled sixteen jurors at the outset of 

this multi-day murder trial. See G. L. c. 234A, § 68 ("In every 

twelve-person jury case, the court shall impanel at least two 

additional jurors").
11

Commonwealth v. Santa Maria, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 490, 498 (2020), 

quoting G. L. c. 234A, § 68. The judge followed the mandated 

statutory procedure. Nonetheless, the defendant argues error, 

on the ground that the judge erred as a matter of law by not

asking the prosecutor if she would stipulate to excluding juror 

no. 34 (who was Black) from the random draw.9

Juror no. 34 was selected during the second day of jury 

selection over the prosecutor's peremptory challenge.10 As the 

9 The defendant's argument relies on the last sentence of § 68, 

see G. L. c. 234A, § 68 ("Nothing in this section shall prevent 

the court from entering a valid judgment based . . . upon 

procedures other than that specified in this section where all 

parties have by stipulation agreed to such . . . procedures"), 

as well as a footnote in Santa Maria, 97 Mass. App. Ct. at 498 

n.12. Contrary to the defendant's suggestion, however, Santa 

Maria does not favor or encourage deviations from the 

statutorily mandated procedure for selecting alternate jurors.

Rather, Santa Maria explicitly cautions against "the use of 

nonrandom procedures." Id. at 499. The defendant's argument, 

which, if adopted, would encourage judges to ask if parties 

would stipulate to which jurors should (or should not) be 

considered for alternate selection to ensure specific 

demographic representation would not "promote public confidence 

in the administration of justice," id., nor does it find support 

in this Commonwealth's case law. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. 

Arriaga, 438 Mass. 556, 562 (2003) ("a requirement that each 

jury include members of every group in the community is 

impracticable"); Commonwealth v. Mora, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 575, 

579 (2012) ("there is no right to the particular impartial 

jurors [who] the [defendant] speculates may be most favorably 

disposed to his defense" [quotation omitted]).

10 The defendant made a Batson-Soares objection to the peremptory 

challenge of juror no. 34, referencing his earlier challenge to 

juror no. 74 as the basis. The judge stated that, 
12

case was to be submitted to the jury, the judge instructed the 

clerk to reduce the number of deliberating jurors to twelve. 

Before the clerk randomly selected the alternate jurors, the 

defendant requested that the judge eliminate juror no. 34 from 

alternate consideration "given the racial composition of the 

jury." The judge responded that "[i]t's not my practice to fool 

around with the system. I don't think there is any statutory 

authority and I'm not going to do it. I note your objection." 

Juror no. 34 was then randomly selected as an alternate juror

and did not deliberate on the outcome of the case. There was no 

error of law; the judge precisely followed the prescribed 

statutory procedure in selecting alternate jurors.

"there are two other potential jurors that haven't been 

called. There is one African American in the jury box. 

One African American has been challenged. Very few African 

Americans in this pool. And I make the finding under 

Soares that there's been a pattern of exclusion of African 

American, blacks, on the jury." 

The judge remarked that he thought the prosecutor had exercised 

a peremptory challenge because juror no. 34 had expressed a 

concern that there were very few Black people in the venire, 

which the judge did not think was "a basis for excluding her." 

The prosecutor responded that the peremptory challenge was due 

to juror no. 34's admission that juror no. 34 was attending 

Alcoholics Anonymous and was in therapy for addiction-related 

issues, and suggested that juror no. 34 had "a bias and a 

prejudice against the process itself." The judge did not accept 

the prosecutor's stated reasons, reiterated that juror no. 34 

could be a fair and impartial juror, and overruled the 

peremptory challenge.
13

2. Sufficiency of the evidence. The defendant argues that 

the evidence was insufficient to permit the jury to find beyond 

a reasonable doubt that he acted with malice. We disagree.11 

"In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider 

'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found 

the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" 

Commonwealth v. Davis, 487 Mass. 448, 462 (2021), quoting 

Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). "Proof of 

the essential elements of the crime may be based on reasonable 

inferences drawn from the evidence, . . . and the inferences a 

jury may draw need only be reasonable and possible and need not 

be necessary or inescapable" (citation omitted). Commonwealth

v. Kapaia, 490 Mass. 787, 791 (2022). "A conviction of murder 

in the second degree requires proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, 

that a defendant committed an unlawful killing with 'malice'" 

(citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Fahey, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 

304, 307 (2021). 

"Malice can be established by proving any of three facts, 

or 'prongs': (1) the defendant intended to cause the 

11 The defendant filed a motion for a required finding of not 

guilty at the close of the Commonwealth's presentation of 

evidence, renewing that motion at the close of all evidence, but 

those motions were limited to the charge of murder in the first 

degree. The defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the 

evidence with respect to second degree murder until his 

postconviction motion to set aside the verdict or, in the 

alternative, for a new trial.
14

victim's death; (2) the defendant intended to cause 

grievous bodily harm to the victim; or (3) the defendant 

committed an intentional act which, in the circumstances 

known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have 

understood created a plain and strong likelihood of death."

Commonwealth v. Earle, 458 Mass. 341, 346 (2010).

The evidence permitted the jury to find the following. On 

June 2, 2011, the victim and his brother picked up a friend from 

his home in Brockton. The brother was driving, the victim sat 

in the front passenger's seat, and the friend sat in the 

backseat on the passenger's side. The trio drove to nearby 33 

Harvard Street, intending to purchase 200 Percocet pills from 

the defendant, from whom they had purchased 100 Percocet pills 

on a prior occasion.

Upon arriving at 33 Harvard Street, the brother parked in a

parking lot at the end of a long driveway, leaving the vehicle 

running while awaiting the defendant. The defendant entered the 

vehicle and immediately pulled out a gun, cocked it, pointed it 

at the victim's head at close range, and demanded that the 

others "give [him] all their shit." The friend asked the

defendant if he was serious, then quickly rushed out of the car. 

The victim told the defendant that he was not getting anything 

and screamed at his brother to drive. The brother hesitated at 

first, but complied at the victim's continued urging. The 

brother tried to swerve the car to "get the gun off my brother's 

head," which caused him to drive the car into a tree, at which 
15

point the brother heard one gunshot. The brother saw the 

defendant hopping over a fence; the victim was slouched down, 

with "blood gushing out" of his head. The victim died from his 

wounds several hours later.12

The defendant, citing Commonwealth v. Colas, 486 Mass. 831, 

837 (2021), contends that an intent to kill cannot be inferred 

solely from the act of pointing a gun at another person. But 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, the defendant did not merely point a gun at the 

victim -- he intentionally pointed a loaded, cocked gun at the 

victim's head at close range immediately upon entering an 

enclosed space with the intent to commit a robbery. A 

reasonable jury could find that the defendant exhibited an 

intent to kill the victim by readying the firearm he was 

pointing at the victim's head such that it "could be fired at 

any moment." Commonwealth v. Tavares, 471 Mass. 430, 436

(2015).

Moreover, the same action created a plain and strong 

likelihood of death. See Commonwealth v. Childs, 445 Mass. 529, 

533 (2005) ("cocking a loaded gun and pointing it into a car in 

which three people are seated creates a plain and strong 

likelihood of death"). To put it mildly, the defendant's action 

12 The victim was also shot in his left thigh.
16

posed an obvious risk, and a jury could reasonably infer the 

defendant acted with malice, thus sustaining the defendant's 

conviction for murder in the second degree.

3. Ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, the 

defendant argues that his motion for a new trial should have 

been allowed because his trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to request jury instructions on both voluntary and 

involuntary manslaughter. "On appeal from a ruling on a motion 

for a new trial, we review for 'a significant error of law or 

other abuse of discretion.'" Commonwealth v. Harris, 101 Mass. 

App. Ct. 308, 311 (2022), quoting Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 

Mass. 303, 307 (1986). We agree with, and have little to add 

to, the motion judge's analysis that no reasonable view of the 

evidence presented at trial supported giving a jury instruction 

on either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. 

"Under the familiar Saferian test, a defendant is denied 

constitutionally effective assistance of counsel if the 

representation fell 'measurably below that which might be 

expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer,' and that the 

performance inadequacy 'likely deprived the defendant of an 

otherwise available, substantial ground of defence.'" 

Commonwealth v. Kolenovic, 471 Mass. 664, 673 (2015), quoting 

Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974). Failure to 

request an instruction to which the defendant is not entitled 
17

does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See, 

e.g., Commonwealth v. DeMarco, 444 Mass. 678, 685 (2005); 

Commonwealth v. Moore, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 40, 49 (2017).

"A manslaughter instruction is required if the evidence, 

considered in the light most favorable to a defendant, would 

permit a verdict of manslaughter and not murder. Voluntary 

manslaughter is an unlawful killing arising not from malice, but 

from sudden passion induced by reasonable provocation, sudden 

combat, or excessive force in self-defense" (quotations and 

citations omitted). Commonwealth v. Garcia, 482 Mass. 408, 410-

411 (2019). The uncontroverted testimony, even in the light 

most favorable to the defendant, was that the defendant was the 

aggressor from the moment he entered the vehicle, cocked his 

firearm, and held it to the victim's head. The defendant's 

theory of the case -- that the victim and his brother provoked 

the defendant, who was trapped in an errantly driven vehicle and 

acted either in self-defense or by accident -- is purely

speculative and uncorroborated by the evidence. The defendant 

was not entitled to an instruction based "on a hypothesis not 

supported by the evidence" (citation omitted). Commonwealth v. 

Pina, 481 Mass. 413, 422 (2019).

The same rationale applies to the defendant's argument that 

he was entitled to an involuntary manslaughter instruction.
18

"An instruction on involuntary manslaughter is required 

where any view of the evidence will permit a finding of 

manslaughter and not murder. When it is obvious, however, 

that the risk of physical harm to the victim created a 

plain and strong likelihood that death will follow, an 

instruction on involuntary manslaughter is not required"

(citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Pierce, 419 Mass. 28, 33 (1994). We need go no 

further than to observe that the defendant's decision to ready a 

loaded firearm and aim it at the victim's head created a plain 

and strong likelihood that death would result and that, as a 

result, he was not entitled to an instruction on involuntary 

manslaughter.

Conclusion. Although we conclude that the evidence was 

insufficient to support the defendant's conviction on the theory 

of felony-murder in the second degree, we affirm the defendant's 

judgment of conviction on the theory of murder in the second 

degree. We also affirm the March 19, 2018 order denying the 

defendant's motion to set aside the verdict, or for a new trial, 
19

as well as the December 5, 2019 order denying the defendant's 

motion to reconsider the denial of that motion.

So ordered.

By the Court (Meade, 

Wolohojian & Walsh, JJ.13),

Assistant Clerk

Entered: January 19, 2024.

13 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.