BOSTON — In an unusual special session, the Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments involving whether a man who killed a bystander during an altercation at the Holyoke Mall at Ingleside can argue he acted in self defense.
The appeal centers on a fatal shooting at a nail salon in 2023, and asks whether Kenneth Jose Santana-Rodriguez should be shielded against a murder charge because he believed he was defending his own life against a man who confronted him while he was getting a pedicure, even though he ended up killing a nail salon worker.
According to court records, Santana-Rodriguez and other witnesses say he was confronted by Irving Sanchez, both who claimed the same woman as their girlfriend. Rodriguez was either slapped or punched by Sanchez.
Kenneth Santana-Rodriguez, of Springfield, appeared in Holyoke District Court on charges of murder and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon following the murder of a bystander at the Holyoke Mall Saturday night. (Don Treeger / The Republican) 1/30/2023
“During the argument, Sanchez slapped the defendant with an open hand. Santiago (the woman involved) said that the defendant then leaned back, pulled out a black firearm, and shot,” court records say.
Sanchez was not hit, but a pedicurist, Trung “Michael” Tran of West Springfield, was fatally struck by a bullet in the chest. He was 33.
Court records say Sanchez fled the scene, tripping over Tran’s body as he left.
Santana-Rodriguez, a factory worker with no criminal record, stayed until police arrived. He told them he had a license to carry a gun and would not have fired inside the salon if Sanchez had not threatened him in the first place.
“The male, later identified as Irving Sanchez, pulled up his shirt to display a firearm and stated, ‘You know what’s about to happen.’ The defendant stated he felt it was him or Sanchez,” according to a brief filed with the court.
The case raises a question about whether the laws of the commonwealth recognize the doctrine of “transferred intent self-defense” and to what extent a defendant can use it to defend themselves in court.
Massachusetts is one of about a dozen states that does not have defined law over transferred intent self-defense.
Springfield attorney Kyle DeSousa, who represented Santana-Rodriguez wrote a legal brief that impressed judges, according to Justice Frank M. Graziano on Wednesday.
Around 38 other states have established law or protections over that question, according to Rodriguez’s attorneys.
The justices of the state’s supreme court typically finish their work by the end of May and don’t reconvene until September. This argument was the only one the court heard this month. It was also the only recent one to ask for a preemptive question on the legal issues.
A Hampden Superior Court judge previously urged engagement from the SJC before the Santana-Rodriguez case goes to trial. If the high court renders a decision that changes the legal landscape, it could affect at least one other outcome in two high-profile cases in Hampden County, Assistant District Attorney David L. Sheppard-Brick wrote in a brief for the government, referencing in a footnote a 2023 shooting where a bullet struck a bus and hit a pregnant woman. The baby boy died at the hospital.
Santana-Rodriguez’s attorney Daniel Hagan, who argued Wednesday in front of the high court, said self-defense should be characterized as a “complete defense,” which means a murder charge could be taken completely off the table.
“Massachusetts … lingers in a world of judicial uncertainty. For the sake of judicial economy, legal consistency, and jurisprudential clarity, the Commonwealth should finally join the fold and implement some form of (transferred intent self-defense),” Santana-Rodriguez’s attorneys wrote in their brief.
Assistant Hampden District Attorney Travis Lynch, under fire from judges’ questions Wednesday, generally argued criminal defendants should not behave recklessly and later argue self-defense.
Transferred intent, the Hampden District Attorney’s Office argued in its brief before the court, “is not available to reduce murder to involuntary manslaughter where the defendant uses a firearm and knows or reasonably should know that the victim is in the line of fire.”
The SJC is not expected to render its decision for two months.
