Title: Rintala v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-11886
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: January 14, 2016

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-11886 
 
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 
Rintala's own statements, the jury could rationally conclude 
2 
 
that, at the time that the victim was killed, she and Rintala 
were the only adults in the house.  There was also evidence 
suggestive of an attempt to compromise the crime scene shortly 
before first responders arrived, of a tumultuous relationship 
between Rintala and the victim, and of Rintala's consciousness 
of guilt.  Because the evidence was sufficient to warrant a 
conviction, Rintala may be retried without violating her rights 
against being subjected to double jeopardy.  The single justice 
neither erred nor abused her discretion by denying relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
David P. Hoose for the petitioner. 
 
Steven E. Gagne, Assistant District Attorney (Jennifer H. 
Suhl with him) for the Commonwealth.