Court Opinion

ID: 9951537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 14:07:26.025597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:41.802660
License: Public Domain

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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-12100

                  COMMONWEALTH   vs.   JULIE A. COREY.

       Worcester.        December 8, 2023. – March 18, 2024.

      Present:    Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Kafker, & Georges, JJ.

Homicide. Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel, Motion for a
     required finding, Appeal by Commonwealth, Psychiatric
     examination, Capital case. Cellular Telephone. Felony-Murder
     Rule. Kidnapping. Evidence, Expert opinion, Inference.

     Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court
Department on December 17, 2009.

     The case was tried before Janet Kenton-Walker, J., and a
motion for a new trial, filed on February 8, 2019, was heard by
her.

     Janet Hetherwick Pumphrey for the defendant.
     Ellyn H. Lazar, Assistant District Attorney, for the
Commonwealth.

     KAFKER, J.    The defendant, Julie A. Corey, was convicted of

murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate

premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder

with a predicate felony of aggravated kidnapping in violation of
                                                                     2

G. L. c. 265, § 26.     Following her conviction, the defendant

filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that she received

ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed

to call a cell phone expert to testify about her location on the

night of the murder.1    Her motion also included a request that

the motion judge enter a required finding of not guilty.     The

motion judge, who was also the trial judge, denied the

defendant's motion for a new trial.    The judge, however, vacated

the defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on a

theory of felony-murder after finding that the evidence was

insufficient to prove the defendant committed the predicate

felony of aggravated kidnapping.

     The defendant now appeals from the denial of her motion for

a new trial, again raising the argument that she received

ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed

to call a cell phone expert.    The defendant also requests that

we exercise our powers pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E (§ 33E),

to reduce her conviction.    The Commonwealth, in turn, appeals

from the judge's order vacating the defendant's felony-murder

conviction.   We disagree with the defendant that she received

     1 The defendant also argued that she received ineffective
assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to call a
psychiatric expert to testify about her alleged postpartum
depression at the time of the murder. She does not raise this
specific claim of ineffective assistance on appeal.
                                                                       3

ineffective assistance of counsel.     Trial counsel's decision not

to call a cell phone expert was not ineffective, nor would it

have likely influenced the jury's conclusions.     Additionally, we

agree with the Commonwealth that there was sufficient evidence

to find the defendant guilty of felony-murder with a predicate

felony of aggravated kidnapping, and so we reinstate that

conviction.     Finally, after reviewing the entire record, we find

no basis upon which to reduce the defendant's conviction and

therefore decline to exercise our § 33E powers.

     1.     Background.   We recite the facts as the jury could have

found them, reserving some details for later discussion.

     a.     The Commonwealth's case.   On July 27, 2009, the

landlord of an apartment building on Southgate Street in

Worcester (Southgate) entered the apartment of Darlene Haynes

(victim), in response to concerns about the victim's pets.         Upon

entering, he perceived a "[v]ery foul" smell.     He went into the

victim's bedroom, walked over to the closet, and pulled on a

blanket.    A leg fell out.   The body was later identified as the

victim's.    An autopsy of the victim revealed blunt force trauma

to her head, an electrical cord wrapped twice around her neck

causing strangulation, a nine-inch incision of her abdomen, and

missing reproductive organs.      The victim was pregnant at the

time she was killed, due anytime.
                                                                   4

     The victim and the defendant had briefly been neighbors at

Southgate, where the defendant resided with her boyfriend, Alex

Dion.    The defendant and Dion dated on and off for about two

years.   In the spring of 2008, the defendant and Dion broke up.

They got back together when the defendant became pregnant.

During their relationship, the defendant was jealous and

frequently accused Dion of cheating on her.    Sometime in 2008,

while they were living at Southgate, the defendant had a

miscarriage.   Soon afterwards, the defendant and Dion again

broke up and then moved out of Southgate.

     In February of 2009, the defendant and Dion resumed

communications.   The defendant told him that she was once again

pregnant with his baby -- a girl -- and was due on June 20.

After getting back together, Dion and the defendant were

frequently fighting about whether she was or was not pregnant,

with the defendant trying to convince Dion by showing him

pregnancy tests and having him listen to a baby monitor.     The

defendant, however, would not let Dion attend doctor's

appointments with her.   On April 13, 2009, the defendant was

taken to the hospital complaining of pain.    Dion was asked to

leave the defendant's hospital room.    Medical records from the

visit indicated that the defendant was thirty weeks pregnant and

that there was good fetal activity.    The defendant told the

doctor that she was in a fight with her boyfriend and that she
                                                                      5

was afraid he would return to his wife.     She eventually left the

hospital against medical advice.

     The defendant's due date came and went.     When June 20

passed, she told Dion that her due date was instead July 2.

When July 2 passed, the defendant told Dion she was due on July

4.   When that date also passed, she told Dion she was scheduled

for a cesarean section but was then "bumped off the list."

Eventually, she told Dion her cesarean section was scheduled for

July 24.    The defendant similarly gave friends and family

changing due dates.

     On July 23, the defendant and Dion were together at home,

which was then the house of Dion's uncle, Kevin Dion.     The two

had prepared for the defendant's cesarean section the next day,

packing Dion's car with an overnight bag.     In the afternoon, the

defendant left, telling Dion that she was going to a friend's

house.     She later called Dion and told him she planned to give

the victim a ride to the store.    Dion found this odd because, as

he and another witness testified, the defendant and the victim

were not friends.     The victim's landlord saw the victim getting

into a car with the defendant in the afternoon, around 3:30 P.M.

That evening, the defendant returned home, but left again to

visit an unidentified friend.     At around 8 P.M., the victim was

seen at a package store near Southgate, with Dion's car in the

parking lot.
                                                                        6

       Between 8:45 P.M. and 11:20 P.M., the victim sent text

messages to her friend, saying that another friend was coming

over to spend the night.    In one text message, the victim said

that she was going to have a wine cooler.     In the final text

message sent at 11:20 P.M., the victim said "[g]ood night."

       Meanwhile, at around 10 P.M., the defendant began calling

Dion to tell him she was having stomach pains.     Around 11:30

P.M., she called Dion to say that her water had broken and that

a friend was going to take her to a hospital in Framingham.        One

or two hours later, she told him that she had a baby girl.        The

defendant was calling Dion frequently throughout the night on

his uncle's telephone.     During these telephone calls, the

defendant complained about the hospital, expressing frustration

with the way doctors were treating her and the baby, and telling

Dion she planned to leave against medical advice.     Telephone

records for the uncle's telephone number suggested that the

defendant called twelve times.     At one point, Dion received a

call on his uncle's telephone from the victim's cell phone

number.   Dion testified that the victim had never before called

him.

       On July 24 from 2 A.M. to 2:30 A.M., neighbors across the

hall from the victim's apartment heard banging noises coming

from the apartment.   It sounded like someone was picking up

furniture and moving it around.     From 3 A.M. to 4 A.M., they
                                                                       7

heard water running on and off in the victim's apartment.       They

did not go to the victim's apartment or contact anyone.

     Between 7 A.M. and 8 A.M. on July 24, the defendant arrived

home with a baby.     The defendant was wearing a new set of

clothes.    Dion noticed that the baby had dried blood in the

creases of her arms and neck, and around her ears.    He also

noticed that the umbilical cord did not have a plastic clip like

the hospital typically provided but was instead tied off with a

string.     When Dion asked the defendant about the string, the

defendant said she had asked the doctor to take the plastic clip

off because it was too heavy.

     The defendant began telling others she had a baby and

introducing the baby to them.     She called her best friend and

told her.    She invited a neighbor over to see the baby.      The

neighbor also noted blood on the baby and the string tied around

her umbilical cord.    The neighbor took the defendant and Dion to

the store to buy formula because the two had no money.        Others

also saw the defendant with the baby on July 24, making note of

the baby's small size, of the string tied around the umbilical

cord, and that the baby was very cold.

     On July 26, the defendant and Dion moved to New Hampshire,

where the defendant's father resided.     They packed their

possessions and put them in Dion's car.     When the two arrived at

the defendant's father's house, however, they were told they
                                                                      8

could not stay.   They were given money for a motel and the next

day sought assistance from a welfare office in New Hampshire.

The defendant had been receiving benefits due to her pregnancy.

She told a case technician with the welfare office that she had

little money but could not work.    When the case technician asked

for a birth certificate or crib card for the baby, the defendant

said she did not have either.    The defendant and Dion eventually

found a shelter where they could stay.

     At various points during their time in New Hampshire, the

defendant became distressed about the baby.    At a doctor's

visit, the defendant became aggravated when the doctor asked to

take a picture of the baby.    She abruptly left with the baby

before the doctor could return with the camera.    While

discussing the doctor's appointment at the shelter, the

defendant leaned against a wall and said, "Nobody's taking this

child away from me."

     Later investigation revealed that the baby in the

defendant's care was not hers, but the biological child of the

victim and the victim's boyfriend, Roberto Rodriguez.      A review

of hospitals in Framingham and Natick produced no records of the

defendant delivering a baby.    In Dion's car, investigators found

a falsified birth certificate for the baby, listing Dion and the

defendant as her parents and a birthplace of Framingham.       Police

also found a document from the defendant's health center,
                                                                      9

stating that she would receive benefits during her pregnancy and

that she would need to reapply for benefits after her delivery.

Other documents from the Massachusetts Department of

Transitional Assistance were found in the car, including a

document requesting that the defendant attend a scheduled

appointment and bring the baby's birth certificate and stating

that, if she did not do so, she could lose her benefits.

     Back in Massachusetts, law enforcement began investigating

and documenting the victim's apartment.     In the bedroom where

the victim's body was found, red-brown stains saturated both

sides of the mattress on the bed.     Red-brown stains were found

on other items in the bedroom and in the kitchen.     Investigators

also found a "Smirnoff" bottle in the living room.     When tested

for the presence of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the defendant

matched the major profile.     Another "Smirnoff" bottle was found

in the victim's bedroom.     The defendant's fingerprint was

discovered on the bottle.

     At trial, the Commonwealth alleged that by July 23 the

defendant had lost her own baby and was distraught.     The

Commonwealth contended that the defendant was concerned Dion

would leave her if she did not have a baby and that she would

lose her benefits.   The Commonwealth argued that the defendant,

seeking a solution for her problems, decided to kill the victim

and take the victim's baby as her own.
                                                                    10

     b.     The defendant's case.   At trial, the defendant

vigorously argued that, even if she took the baby, she did not

kill the victim.    The defendant argued that it would not be

possible for her to commit the murder, clean up the victim's

apartment, dispose of the evidence, and take care of the baby,

all while repeatedly calling Dion.

     Rather, the defendant argued that Rodriguez, the victim's

boyfriend and the father of the baby, committed the murder

because he was angry with the victim and no longer wished to be

in a relationship with her.     The defense suggested that

Rodriguez, after murdering the victim, saved his baby and then

gave her to the defendant.     The defendant further argued that

law enforcement's investigation of the murder, including

Rodriguez's involvement, was inadequate (a so-called Bowden2

defense).

     As part of these defenses, the defendant introduced

evidence that Rodriguez had previously been violent toward the

victim, allegedly kicking her in the stomach and pushing her

into a glass coffee table.    This altercation resulted in the

victim obtaining a restraining order against Rodriguez.       The

defense also called a former girlfriend of Rodriguez, who

testified about an incident where Rodriguez became jealous and

     2   Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472, 485-486 (1980).
                                                                     11

angry, grabbing her by the neck and pulling her into another

room.    She testified that Rodriguez then grabbed a belt, wrapped

it around her neck, and proceeded to choke her.     He allegedly

told her that he was going to hang her and that it would only

hurt for "a second."    The altercation only ended when the

telephone rang and Rodriguez left the room to answer it.        In

closing argument, the defendant argued that Rodriguez's actions

toward both the ex-girlfriend and the victim demonstrated a

pattern of violence consistent with the murder.

        The defendant presented additional evidence allegedly

connecting Rodriguez to the murder.     The jury heard testimony

that a first-aid kit taken from the victim's apartment contained

DNA from both Rodriguez and the baby.    The jury also heard the

testimony of an individual who saw Rodriguez on July 24 walking

"from the direction of the [nearby] cemetery."     The witness

attempted to say hello to Rodriguez, but Rodriguez rushed away.

Rodriguez appeared disgruntled, dirty, and sweaty.     The

defendant, in closing argument, suggested that Rodriguez could

have buried missing evidence, including the victim's

reproductive organs, at the cemetery.     Finally, the jury heard

evidence that, during his first interview with the police

following the discovery of the victim's body, Rodriguez did not

inquire whether the baby had survived.
                                                                    12

     Arguing that law enforcement failed to adequately

investigate the murder, the defendant introduced evidence that

the police learned people were present in the victim's apartment

between July 23 and the day her body was discovered.3      The

defendant called a detective to discuss a statement from the

victim's neighbor.   The neighbor told police that on the evening

of July 23, she saw the victim and the defendant smoking on the

back porch with an unknown male.   The male was described as

white, roughly six feet tall, having tattoos, and wearing a

white "wife beater" T-shirt.   When shown a photographic array,

the neighbor picked out a photograph of William Daviau, a friend

and former roommate of the victim and Rodriguez.    The neighbor

also told the detective that around 4:45 A.M. on July 24, she

saw someone crawling through the window of the victim's

apartment who she believed was Daviau.     The detective

subsequently interviewed Daviau about his whereabouts on July 23

and 24.   Daviau stated that he was in a "drug rehab facility,"

where he was obligated to stay at night.    Neither the detective

nor -- to his knowledge -- any other officer checked Daviau's

alibi.

     3 The evidence was introduced not for the truth of the
matter, but to demonstrate what was known by law enforcement,
pursuant to Bowden. See Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago, 453
Mass. 782, 802 (2009).
                                                                      13

     Another neighbor of the victim testified that on the night

of July 24, she saw an individual in the victim's apartment.

She recognized him as the friend of people who lived downstairs

and thought his name was "Tim."     When Tim noticed the neighbor

looking, he pulled down the blinds.     Later, on July 26, the same

neighbor saw a person climbing into the victim's window from the

front porch.    She heard water being dumped over the porch.    When

she went to investigate, she saw Tim standing in front of

another person who was trying to hide his or her face.     The two

were returning from the porch, with Tim carrying a fish tank.

The neighbor mentioned that the victim had promised her a table.

When the neighbor and her friend tried to enter the victim's

apartment to get the table, Tim would not let them enter.       The

jury later learned that Tim was Timothy Tripp, a friend of

Rodriguez.     Tripp testified that on the night of July 26, he

went to the victim's apartment to obtain a fish tank that

Rodriguez had promised him.     He stated that he only remained in

the apartment long enough to retrieve the fish tank.     Tripp did

not remember if the police ever inspected the fish tank.

     The defendant also argued that law enforcement failed to

adequately search for evidence.     Law enforcement did not search

the cemetery from which Rodriguez was seen walking.     After

finding a debit card belonging to Rodriguez in the victim's

apartment, an officer testified that he was not aware of anyone
                                                                   14

in law enforcement analyzing the card's transactions to

determine whether it was recently left there.     Neither

Rodriguez's apartment nor his car was searched.     The defense

also elicited testimony that law enforcement did not test a

number of items found in the victim's apartment for

fingerprints.   Although the victim was found with an electrical

cord wrapped around her neck, the police did not test a lamp

with a missing electrical cord for fingerprints.

     In closing argument, trial counsel suggested that law

enforcement "left a lot of stones unturned."     Based on this

argument, trial counsel successfully sought jury instructions as

to both third-party culprit and Bowden defenses.     The jury were

instructed that they could consider law enforcement's failure to

investigate leads or perform tests in evaluating the defendant's

guilt or innocence.     The jury were also told that they may

substantively consider evidence about Rodriguez in evaluating

whether another person committed the murder.

     c.   Verdict.    After hearing all the evidence, the jury

convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree on

theories of deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or

cruelty, and felony-murder.

     2.   Discussion.   a.   Ineffective assistance of counsel.

The defendant contends that the judge erred in denying her

motion for a new trial because she received ineffective
                                                                   15

assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to call a cell

phone expert to testify at trial.   Specifically, the defendant

alleges that an expert would have testified that the defendant

was traveling throughout Worcester on the night of the killing

and was rarely connected to cell towers near Southgate.      She

argues this evidence would have demonstrated to the jury that

she could not have committed the murder and then cleaned up

afterwards.

     In support of her motion for a new trial, the defendant

submitted an affidavit by a cell phone expert retained

postconviction.   In the affidavit, the defendant's expert

described his review of the defendant's cell site location

information (CSLI) records from July 23, 2009, at 7 A.M. to July

24, 2009, at 6 A.M.   The expert stated that there were two cell

towers near Southgate to which the defendant's cell phone

connected during this period:   one near Holy Cross College (Holy

Cross tower) and one near Main Street (Main Street tower).

According to the expert, the defendant's cell phone connected to

the Holy Cross tower on July 23 at 1:30 P.M. and then 8:59 P.M.

The defendant's cell phone connected to the Main Street tower at

7:49 P.M. that same day.   The defense expert also noted that the

defendant's cell phone connected to a tower on the other side of

Interstate Route 290 (Oak Hill tower) from Southgate on July 23

at 10:42 P.M. and on July 24 at 4:06 A.M.   Finally, the expert
                                                                  16

explained that there were no records in the early morning of

July 24, meaning that it was "impossible" to know where the cell

phone was located at the time.

     In opposition to the defendant's motion for a new trial,

the Commonwealth filed an affidavit by its own expert about the

CSLI data and the analysis of the defendant's expert.    The

Commonwealth's expert agreed that there was no location data on

July 24 from approximately 12 A.M. to 2 A.M. or from

approximately 4 A.M. to 6 A.M., and that it was therefore

impossible to know where the defendant's cell phone was located

during these hours.   The Commonwealth's expert, however,

disagreed about connections to the Holy Cross tower, finding

additional connection times on July 23 at 8:24 P.M., 8:58 P.M.,

and 8:50 P.M.   The Commonwealth's expert also disagreed with the

defendant's expert's description of the distance between

Southgate and the Oak Hill tower on the other side of Interstate

Route 290.   According to the Commonwealth's expert, a cell phone

does not always connect to the closest cell tower, meaning that

the distance of a cell tower is not always determinative of the

cell phone's location.   He opined that it was possible that the

defendant's cell phone was connected to the Oak Hill tower while

she was located at Southgate.    Finally, the Commonwealth's

expert stated that, during a review of the victim's cell phone

records, three calls were made on July 24 (at 5:16 A.M., 7:25
                                                                   17

A.M., and 7:32 A.M.) using the "*67" prefix, which prevents the

recipient of the call from viewing the outgoing telephone

number.    The first call was made to Kevin Dion's telephone and

the last two calls were made to the defendant's cell phone.

     The defendant also submitted an affidavit from trial

counsel.   Trial counsel stated that he considered calling a cell

phone expert to testify, but decided not to because he believed

the third-party culprit and Bowden defenses were so strong.

Trial counsel further noted that the defendant, in her

affidavit, did not dispute that she was at the victim's

apartment on the night of the killing.   The judge held an

evidentiary hearing limited to the defendant's other claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel.4   See note 1, supra.   Although

     4 To the extent that the defendant suggests that the judge
was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of
trial counsel's failure to call a cell phone expert, we
disagree. A judge may rule on a motion for a new trial without
a further evidentiary hearing "if no substantial issue is raised
by the motion or affidavits." Commonwealth v. Upton, 484 Mass.
155, 161 (2020), quoting Commonwealth v. Goodreau, 442 Mass.
341, 348 (2004). For an issue to be substantial, "the
defendant's submissions need not prove the [motion's] factual
premise . . . but they must contain sufficient credible
information to cast doubt on the issue" (quotation and citation
omitted). Upton, supra at 162. Where the motion judge was also
the trial judge, the judge may use his or her "knowledge and
evaluation of the evidence at trial" to "consider whether
holding a hearing will add anything to the credibility or
materiality of the affidavits submitted" (quotation and
citations omitted). Id. We discern no abuse of discretion in
the judge's decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing on the
issue of trial counsel's failure to call a cell phone expert.
As discussed supra, the defendant's and the Commonwealth's
                                                                     18

trial counsel testified at that hearing, he did not testify

about his decision not to call a cell phone expert.    Following

the hearing, the judge denied the defendant's motion for a new

trial, finding that trial counsel's failure to call a cell phone

expert was not ineffective assistance.

     Absent a constitutional error, we review the denial of a

motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion.     Commonwealth

v. Kolenovic, 471 Mass. 664, 672 (2015), S.C., 478 Mass. 189

(2017).   See Commonwealth v. Upton, 484 Mass. 155, 162 (2020)

(abuse of discretion standard applied where judge denied motion

for new trial without holding evidentiary hearing).     Where the

motion judge was also the trial judge, "we give 'special

deference' to the judge's findings of fact and the ultimate

decision on the motion."   Kolenovic, supra at 672-673, quoting

Commonwealth v. Lane, 462 Mass. 591, 597 (2012).     The judge has

the discretion to weigh the credibility and import of affidavits

submitted in support of a motion for a new trial.     Commonwealth

v. Grace, 370 Mass. 746, 751-752 (1976).   The judge's findings,

experts were largely in agreement. Additionally, the judge
oversaw the trial and was thus intimately familiar with the
Commonwealth's case and any potential defenses. An evidentiary
hearing on this point would add nothing to aid the judge in
assessing the strength of the defendant's claim. See Goodreau,
supra at 348-349 ("If the theory of the motion, as presented by
the papers, is not credible or not persuasive, holding an
evidentiary hearing to have the witnesses repeat the same
evidence . . . will accomplish nothing").
                                                                     19

therefore, will be accepted if supported by the record.

Commonwealth v. Walker, 443 Mass. 213, 224 (2005).

     When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is

brought on an appeal from a conviction of murder in the first

degree, we first examine whether there has been a "serious

failure by trial counsel."      Commonwealth v. Tolan, 453 Mass.

634, 645 (2009), quoting Commonwealth v. Harbin, 435 Mass. 654,

656 (2002).     We then consider whether that failure resulted in a

substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.      Tolan,

supra.    Under this standard, we must ask whether the error "was

likely to have influenced the jury's conclusion."      Walker, 443

Mass. at 225, quoting Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678, 682

(1992), S.C., 469 Mass. 447 (2014).

     Strategic or tactical decisions by trial counsel will only

be considered ineffective if they were manifestly unreasonable

at the time made.    Commonwealth v. Ayala, 481 Mass. 46, 62

(2018).     "The decision to call, or not to call, an expert

witness fits squarely within the realm of strategic or tactical

decisions."    Id. at 63.   Such a decision is only manifestly

unreasonable if it is one that "lawyers of ordinary training and

skill in criminal law would not consider competent" (citation

omitted).     Id. at 62.   When assessing trial counsel's decisions,

"reasonableness does not demand perfection. . . .      Nor is
                                                                   20

reasonableness informed by what hindsight may reveal as a

superior or better strategy."   Kolenovic, 471 Mass. at 674.

     Trial counsel's decision not to call a cell phone expert

was not ineffective assistance because the decision was not

manifestly unreasonable at the time it was made.   At the time

trial counsel decided not to call a cell phone expert, the

defendant had viable defenses based on evidence of third-party

culprits and law enforcement's failure to investigate.    This

evidence was used to show that others were at the victim's

apartment at the time of the killing, and that the defendant

could not have both committed the murder and cleaned up

afterwards.   Trial counsel forcefully argued as much during his

closing argument.   An expert may have been able to provide some

limited evidence that would help corroborate the defendant's

case, but we do not assess trial counsel's decision from the

benefit of hindsight.   See Kolenovic, 471 Mass. at 674 (our

review "limits the effect of hindsight by requiring a focus on

the point in time when counsel made the challenged strategic

decision").   Additionally, trial counsel was aware that CSLI

records could also corroborate the Commonwealth's case that the

defendant was at the victim's apartment.   We cannot say it was

manifestly unreasonable for trial counsel to choose not to get

into the weeds of the defendant's comings and goings, especially

where he believed that the other defenses were more persuasive.
                                                                   21

See Ayala, 481 Mass. at 63-65 (not manifestly unreasonable for

trial counsel to fail to call eyewitness identification expert

where trial counsel "vigorously challenged" identification

through other means).     There was no error by trial counsel.

     We also conclude that the expert testimony, had it been

presented, would not likely have influenced the jury's result.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, her cell phone expert's

affidavit does not prove that she was somewhere else at the time

of the murder.   Rather, the expert noted that the defendant's

only connections to a cell tower between July 23 at 10:42 P.M.

and July 24 at 4:06 A.M. were to the Oak Hill tower, which he

suggested was far from Southgate.     But as the Commonwealth's

cell phone expert noted, a cell phone does not always connect to

the closest tower.    The defendant's expert thus could not have

conclusively placed her far from Southgate on the night of the

killing.   Additionally, the defendant's expert noted several

significant gaps in cell phone activity during those critical

hours of the night.     In contrast, the Commonwealth's expert

found records of calls placed through the victim's cell phone

during these gaps, including a telephone call at 5:16 A.M. on

July 24, which Dion claimed was a call from the defendant, not

the victim, as the victim had never called him before.     The CSLI

records, therefore, weakly supported the defendant's case, while

also corroborating parts of the Commonwealth's case.     We cannot
                                                                    22

say that in these circumstances the expert's testimony about the

defendant's cell phone location would have influenced the jury's

conclusion.   See Commonwealth v. Kirkland, 491 Mass. 339, 350-

351 (2023) (any error in failing to call barber experts to

contradict identifications of defendant based on hairstyle was

unlikely to influence jury's conclusion where experts could not

conclusively rule out that defendant possessed such hairstyle).

See also Commonwealth v. Moore, 489 Mass. 735, 747-748 (2022)

(trial counsel not ineffective for failing to use defendant's

CSLI data to cast doubt on testimony placing defendant at

killings where data did not conclusively show defendant was

elsewhere and was "arguably inculpatory"); Commonwealth v.

Gonzalez, 443 Mass. 799, 811 (2005) (trial counsel's failure to

call expert to testify that victim's wounds were caused by

right-handed assailant was not ineffective where "claim is

entirely speculative" and "no evidence or affidavit indicat[es]

that an expert could make such a determination").

     We therefore hold that trial counsel was not ineffective in

failing to call a cell phone expert.    Accordingly, it was not an

abuse of discretion for the judge to deny the defendant's motion

for a new trial.

     b.   Felony-murder conviction.    At trial, the Commonwealth

sought to convict the defendant of murder in the first degree

under several theories, including felony-murder with a predicate
                                                                     23

felony of aggravated kidnapping, in violation of G. L. c. 265,

§ 26 (§ 26).   After significant debate between the parties, the

judge instructed the jury on felony-murder and the jury returned

a verdict of guilty on this theory.

     Following her conviction, the defendant filed a motion for

a new trial that included a request for entry of a finding of

not guilty pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 25 (b) (2), as amended,

420 Mass. 1502 (1995), without specifying the grounds on which

such relief was warranted.    The judge allowed the defendant's

motion as to the conviction of murder in the first degree on a

theory of felony-murder.     The judge concluded that the evidence

at trial failed to prove that the defendant inflicted serious

bodily injury on the baby, as required by § 26.     The

Commonwealth now appeals.

     Our review of the judge's ruling on the motion for a

required finding of not guilty is a question of law.      See

Commonwealth v. Doucette, 408 Mass. 454, 456 (1990).      The

question before us, as it was for the judge, is "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"

(emphasis in original).     Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Latimore,

378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979).    A conviction may be sufficient where

it is based on "circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn
                                                                    24

therefrom," so long as the inferences are "reasonable and

possible" (citation omitted).    Commonwealth v. Trotto, 487 Mass.

708, 716 (2021).   Although inferences "need not be necessary or

inescapable," a conviction "may not rest on the piling of

inference upon inference or on conjecture and speculation"

(quotation and citations omitted).     Id.

     To convict the defendant on the theory of felony-murder,

the Commonwealth was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that the defendant committed the homicide while engaged in the

commission of aggravated kidnapping.    See Commonwealth v.

Matchett, 386 Mass. 492, 502 (1982).     See also Commonwealth v.

Fredette, 480 Mass. 75, 86 (2018) (aggravated kidnapping may

serve as predicate felony for felony-murder conviction without

violating merger doctrine).     Aggravated kidnapping, in turn,

required that the Commonwealth prove that the defendant

kidnapped the baby "while armed with a dangerous weapon and

inflict[ed] serious bodily injury thereby upon [the baby]."

G. L. c. 265, § 26, third par.    Section 26 defines "serious

bodily injury" as "bodily injury which results in a permanent

disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of a bodily

function, limb or organ or substantial risk of death."     Id.

     The judge found, and the defendant urges on appeal, that

there was insufficient evidence to prove serious bodily injury

to the baby.   The judge reasoned that there were no visible
                                                                     25

signs of injury or trauma to the baby.    Although a medical

expert testified about the effects of the injuries to the victim

on the baby and the effects of removal of the baby from the

victim, the judge found that the alleged injury to the baby

rested on knowledge outside the jury's expertise.    Additional

expert testimony, according to the judge and the defendant, was

required for the Commonwealth to prove aggravated kidnapping

beyond a reasonable doubt.

     The judge and the defendant correctly note that a

conviction may not rest on conjecture or speculation.     See

Trotto, 487 Mass. at 716.    Accordingly, expert testimony is

needed where an issue is outside the general knowledge and

experience of the jury.   Commonwealth v. Scott, 464 Mass. 355,

364 & n.9 (2013).   In Scott, we concluded that the Commonwealth

would not be able to meet its burden of proof as to the severity

of an injury merely through medical records containing technical

terminology, because such terminology was not in the jury's

common knowledge or experience.    Id. at 363-364.

     This case, however, is unlike Scott.     Viewing the evidence

in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the

Commonwealth did not need additional testimony to establish that

there was both a bodily injury to the baby and that this injury

created a substantial risk of death.     The victim, who was the

mother of the baby, was killed, and the baby was removed from
                                                                   26

the victim's womb, along with all of the victim's reproductive

organs, by someone without medical training.5   This was done at

the crime scene itself, and obviously not in a sterile

environment.

     The jury received evidence of the significant injuries to

the victim, including fatal blunt force trauma to her head,

asphyxia by ligature strangulation, and incision of her abdomen.

The Commonwealth's expert in obstetrics testified that the death

of a mother would create a loss of blood flow and oxygen to the

fetus.   The jury were also told that the longer this loss

continues, the more harm and danger there would be to the baby.

We conclude that the loss of blood and oxygen, caused by the

killing of the mother, presents a bodily injury to the fetus.

Indeed, we have previously recognized, in other contexts, the

effects to a fetus of injuries to the mother.   See, e.g.,

Commonwealth v. Ronchi, 491 Mass. 284, 296 (2023) (holding that

injuries need not be inflicted directly on viable fetus for

defendant to be criminally liable for death of fetus);

Commonwealth v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 806-807 (1984) (for

     5 As part of her third-party culprit defense, the defendant
suggests that Rodriguez had the medical knowledge to remove the
baby because he was a personal care assistant for an elderly
person. Nothing about being a personal care assistant for an
elderly person suggests Rodriguez had the necessary medical
training.
                                                                     27

purposes of vehicular homicide statute, recognizing that

infliction of injuries upon mother that results in death of

viable fetus is homicide).   With the obstetrician's expert

testimony, the jury could reasonably infer that the injuries to

the victim also inflicted bodily injury on the baby.   See

Trotto, 487 Mass. at 716 (jury permitted to draw "reasonable and

possible" inferences from circumstantial evidence [citation

omitted]).   This inference did not require knowledge or

experience outside that of the jury's or beyond that established

through testimony.

     Likewise, the jury could reasonably conclude that the

inflicted bodily injury created a substantial risk of death.         As

explained above, the Commonwealth's expert obstetrician

testified that the loss of a mother's heartbeat creates

significant dangers to a fetus.   He explained that the fetus

then loses blood, and therefore oxygen, needed to survive.      He

further explained that there is a narrow window of time during

which the fetus can be removed from the mother's body before the

fetus will also die.   Additionally, the forcible removal of the

baby from the mother was not performed according to recognized

medical procedures, such as a cesarean section.   Nor was it

performed by a trained professional in a sterile environment.

Rather, it was performed by the victim's murderer at a crime

scene.   The jury did not need additional expert testimony to
                                                                    28

conclude that such actions would create significant risks to the

baby, including a risk of death.    The jury could use their

common sense to draw such a conclusion.

     The Commonwealth thus presented sufficient evidence at

trial that the defendant inflicted serious bodily injury upon

the baby during the commission of the kidnapping.    A "rational

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt."     Doucette, 408 Mass. at 456,

quoting Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677.    We therefore reverse the

order allowing the defendant's motion for a required finding of

not guilty and reinstate her conviction of murder in the first

degree on a theory of felony-murder.

     c.   Relief pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E.   Finally, the

defendant asks that we exercise our powers under § 33E to reduce

the verdict to a lesser degree of guilt.    The defendant proposes

several bases upon which we may choose to exercise this

extraordinary relief:   (1) that the defendant was suffering from

postpartum depression and psychosis at the time of the murder,

which contributed to her decision to take the baby; (2) that

Rodriguez had a stronger motive for killing the victim than the

defendant; (3) that the victim's murder was more consistent with

Rodriguez's past actions than with the defendant's; (4) that

multiple men were present at the victim's apartment between the

night the victim was murdered and the day her body was
                                                                    29

discovered; (5) that law enforcement's investigation was

inadequate and failed to uncover evidence inculpating Rodriguez;

(6) that Rodriguez's actions after the murder suggested he was

guilty; (7) that the defendant could not have been involved in

the extensive clean-up following the killing; (8) that the

defendant's cell phone records indicated that she was not near

the crime scene; (9) that Rodriguez, as a personal care

assistant, could have had the skills to remove the baby; and

(10) that the defendant and the victim were friends with no

animosity between them.

     "This court has used its extraordinary authority pursuant

to § 33E sparingly and with restraint, reducing convictions only

in the most compelling circumstances" (quotations and citation

omitted).    Commonwealth v. Yat Fung Ng, 491 Mass. 247, 272

(2023).     Such relief is only warranted if, after review of the

entire case and considering "a broad range of factors," we

conclude that the defendant's "conviction of murder in the first

degree was a miscarriage of justice that warrants a reduction in

the degree of guilt."    Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Concepcion,

487 Mass. 77, 94, cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 408 (2021).     "In

exercising our powers under . . . § 33E, we do not act as a

second jury."    Commonwealth v. Sawyer, 389 Mass. 686, 704

(1983).
                                                                    30

     In her request for relief under § 33E, the defendant raises

many issues that were presented at trial and argued to the jury.

As discussed supra, the defendant successfully introduced

evidence suggesting that Rodriguez was a violent man with a

motive to kill the victim.     The defendant argued at trial that

Rodriguez's failure to inquire about the status of the baby when

questioned by the police indicated that he already knew what

happened to her.    The jury heard about Rodriguez's actions

around the date of the murder, including his walking from the

cemetery.   The jury also heard evidence that several men were

seen at the victim's apartment, including one man seen climbing

through the victim's window.    The victim's neighbor also

testified about her interactions with one of the men who

appeared nervous.    Additionally, the jury heard extensive

testimony about law enforcement's failure to thoroughly inquire

into each of these leads, to investigate Rodriguez, or to test

evidence at the victim's apartment.    Finally, the defendant

argued that she could not have possibly committed the murder and

then cleaned up the evidence.    There was, however, also

overwhelming evidence of the defendant's own involvement in the

murder of the victim, which we have described supra.

     The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three theories

of murder, even after being presented with well-developed third-

party culprit and Bowden defenses.    The jury were also properly
                                                                    31

instructed to consider both defenses.   "[Because] the issue of

the defendant's criminal responsibility was fully and fairly

before the jury, . . . justice does not require that their

verdict be disturbed."   Commonwealth v. Lunde, 390 Mass. 42, 50

(1983).

     On appeal, the defendant only raises three issues for our

consideration that were not considered by the jury:   that cell

phone records indicated she was not present at the crime scene,

that she was suffering from mental illness, and that she had no

animosity toward the victim.   We have already considered the

first of these issues supra and determined that the records do

not exculpate the defendant.   We do not believe either of the

other two bases warrants a reduction in the jury's verdict.

     At her motion for a new trial, the defendant alleged

counsel was ineffective for failing to call a psychiatric expert

to testify about her mental illness at the time of the killing.

While the defendant does not renew this argument on appeal, she

urges us to consider evidence presented to the judge about her

mental state.   Specifically, the defendant submitted with her

motion two affidavits from an expert in psychiatry who had

reviewed the defendant's medical and psychiatric records.     The

expert opined that it was "probable" the defendant was suffering

from postpartum depression and anxiety at the time of the

murder.   The expert also noted that the defendant was at risk
                                                                   32

for postpartum psychosis, based upon a history of psychiatric

symptoms during pregnancy.   It was the expert's opinion that

such mental illnesses "could have caused a delusional belief

that keeping the victim's baby was appropriate and ethical."

Importantly, the expert's opinion only focused on the

defendant's actions in taking the baby, not in committing

murder.   More specifically, the expert referred to the defendant

as "taking the baby that was given to her and in believing that

she could and should keep the baby as her own."     The expert did

not specifically address whether such postpartum psychosis could

cause the defendant to murder the victim, including in the cruel

and atrocious manner that it occurred here.

     We have previously found a reduction in a jury's verdict to

be more consonant with justice in cases involving a defendant

with an impaired mental condition.   See, e.g., Commonwealth v.

Dowds, 483 Mass. 498, 512-513 (2019); Commonwealth v. Colleran,

452 Mass. 417, 432-434 (2008).   In Colleran, supra at 432, we

reasoned that a defendant's mental illness "bears on the

specific intent required for murder in the first degree based on

deliberate premeditation."   We also reasoned that where a

defendant's conduct was "driven by her mental condition," the

killing was not committed in a manner "that judges and juries

generally consider extremely atrocious or cruel."    Id. at 434.

In Colleran, the defendant had impulsively murdered her own
                                                                    33

child while experiencing profound depression and psychosis.      Id.

at 420-422.   An expert in forensic psychiatry testified that the

defendant's mental illness would typically make a person

"commit[] acts profoundly contrary to the person's self-

interest," and that the illness impaired the defendant's ability

to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.     Id. at

422.

       The defendant's mental condition in this case was not as

severe as that at issue in Colleran.    Here, the defendant's

expert could only opine that she was probably suffering from

some form of postpartum depression and was at risk of postpartum

psychosis.    As stated above, the expert did not address the

relationship of postpartum depression or the risk of psychosis

to the murder, as opposed to taking the baby.    Furthermore,

nothing in the expert's affidavits suggest that the defendant

was incapable of forming the specific intent necessary for

deliberate premeditation, or that the defendant's actions were

so impulsive that they could not be considered extremely

atrocious or cruel.    See Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 460 Mass.

409, 421 (2011) ("The defendant's psychological diagnosis, while

significant, does not reach this level of severity, and there is

no evidence that it was intertwined with the victim's killing").

The crime, as evidenced by the photographic exhibits, was

atrocious and cruel.   Also absent in the expert's affidavits are
                                                                   34

any indications that the defendant lacked the capacity to

conform her conduct to the requirements of the law or appreciate

the wrongfulness of murdering an innocent victim to take her

baby.   See Colleran, 452 Mass. at 427, quoting Commonwealth v.

McHoul, 352 Mass. 544, 547 (1967) (articulating McHoul standard

for lack of criminal responsibility).

     Moreover, the defendant could have raised a mental

impairment claim at trial.   Trial counsel discussed the

possibility of doing so with the defendant, who was deeply

involved in the development of her case.    The defendant,

however, adamantly protested raising a mental impairment defense

because she did not want to admit to any wrongdoing.     Thus, not

only was there a dearth of evidence indicating that her alleged

mental impairment contributed to the commission of the murder,

but also the defendant rejected that claim herself.    On these

facts, we cannot conclude that the defendant's conviction was a

miscarriage of justice.

     Finally, the defendant asks that we take into consideration

that she and the victim were friends and that there was no

evidence of animosity between them.     Indeed, in Colleran, 452

Mass. at 431, we noted that a lack of animosity may be a factor

to consider in our review.   In Commonwealth v. Jones, 366 Mass.

805, 808-809 (1975), we reduced the defendant's conviction to

manslaughter where "there was no evidence that [the defendant
                                                                      35

and the victim] had had prior trouble."       That factor, however,

weighed in our analysis of whether the defendant possessed the

requisite malice for a conviction of murder in the second

degree.    Id. at 809.    The fact that the defendant and the victim

were acquaintances with no animosity supported a conclusion that

the killing was done "in the heat of sudden affray or combat"

(citation omitted).      Id.   The same cannot be said here.   The

jury heard evidence that the victim and the defendant were not

friends.   The jury also heard evidence suggesting that the

defendant thoughtfully planned the murder in order to possess

the victim's baby.    This was not a case in which the lack of

animosity negated the essential elements of the defendant's

conviction.

     For the foregoing reasons, and after reviewing the entire

record, we decline to exercise our powers under § 33E.

     3.    Conclusion.    We hold that the defendant's trial counsel

was not ineffective for failing to call a cell phone expert to

testify about the location of the defendant's cell phone, where

the decision was reasonably made and the evidence would not have

affected the jury's conclusion.       We therefore affirm the order

denying the defendant's motion for a new trial.       We reverse,

however, the order entering a required finding of not guilty on

the defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on the

theory of felony-murder.       The evidence was sufficient for a fact
                                                                 36

finder to conclude that the defendant committed aggravated

robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.   We thus reinstate the

defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory

of felony-murder.   Finally, finding no reason to exercise our

extraordinary powers pursuant to § 33E, we decline to disturb

the jury's verdict in this case.

                                     So ordered.