BOSTON, May 27, 2016—The Massachusetts Appeals Court today affirmed a Revere man’s manslaughter conviction in the fatal beating of 22-year-old Jose “Danny” Alicea outside a downtown nightclub, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.

ANTHONY VILLALOBOS (D.O.B. 12/29/87) was one of seven men found guilty in Alicea’s homicide at the hands of a tuxedo-clad mob outside a downtown nightclub. Six more were convicted of beating three of Alicea’s friends during the same incident near Club 33 on Stanhope Street during the early morning hours of Aug. 21, 2009.

On appeal, Villalobos claimed that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a conviction, that the prosecutor’s closing argument was improper, and that his attorney at trial was ineffective. In a 28-page decision authored by Justice Sidney Hanlon, the Appeals Court roundly rejected these claims.

Citing testimony that Villalobos was one of the “more aggressive” assailants in the fatal encounter and case law that taking part in the “vicious beating of one man by several assailants creates an inference of intent to do grievous bodily harm or, at least, to do an act which would create a plain and strong likelihood of death,” the Appeals Court wrote that “We are satisfied that there was no error in the [judge’s] denial of the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty.”

Though the defendant did not object to the prosecutor’s closing argument at trial, he claimed on appeal that the argument misstated the evidence by suggesting Villalobos was part of the group that beat the victim. The Appeals Court, however, found that “several eyewitnesses identified the defendant as a member of the red and black-attired group that together participated in beating the victims” and that “Video surveillance corroborated some of this testimony.”

The defendant also claimed on appeal that his trial attorney should have argued that he invoked his right to counsel while being read his Miranda rights by Boston Police detectives. The Appeals Court found that the nominal invocation was in the context of his refusal to initial the written form in which he was advised of his rights, and found further that the trial judge “correctly applied the law to the facts” when he denied a motion to suppress the defendant’s brief post-Miranda statement.

Finally, the defendant also claimed that the trial judge should have acted on the trial prosecutor’s report that two jurors were sleeping during different portions of the trial. The majority of the court found otherwise, based on a trio of 2015 decisions by the Supreme Judicial Court.

“First, if the jurors in question did fall asleep, it appears to have been short-lived, brought as it was to the immediate attention of the court by an alert prosecutor,” Hanlon wrote. “Second, this defendant’s lawyer said nothing at all about the issue; one co-defendant’s lawyer said only that one of the two jurors appeared alert to him. Despite the judge’s explicit inquiry about what the prosecutor wanted him to do, no one requested that the judge conduct a voir dire, or excuse either juror – or do anything other than monitor the situation,” which the judge did.

Assistant District Attorney Amanda Teo of the DA’s Appellate Division argued the case before the Appeals Court. Assistant District Attorneys David Fredette and Amy Galatis prosecuted the case at trial. Katherine Moran was the DA’s assigned victim-witness advocate. Villalobos was represented on appeal by attorney Elda James.

–30–

All defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt