Commonwealth v. Daniel Rogers

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Daniel Rogers's motion for a new trial, holding that counsel's failure to present neuropsychological evidence of panic did not deprive him of a substantial defense because the evidence addressed conduct after he had already formed the intent to steal. The court reaffirmed that a judge may reduce a verdict under rule 25 (b) (2) even after direct-appeal affirmance, but reversed the reduction here because the judge relied on legally impermissible considerations and the evidence did not support a lesser offense. No separate opinions were issued.