Man who killed boy over snowball fight convicted of manslaughter

A Feltonville man was spared life in prison without parole by a Philadelphia jury that convicted him yesterday of a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter for shooting a 15-year-old boy after a loud, angry sidewalk confrontation about a snowball fight.

The Common Pleas Court jury's verdict means Jose O. Mendez, 25, faces 131/2 to 27 years in prison for the Feb. 24, 2008, killing of Teven Rutledge.

The verdict also means the 12 jurors apparently gave some credit to Mendez's tearful testimony Friday, when he insisted he only shot Rutledge during the standoff in the 4800 block of D Street because the teen pulled a knife and lunged at him.

Mendez was the only witness who said Rutledge menaced him with a knife. Mendez also fired the fatal shot after leaving an earlier altercation with Rutledge, going home and returning with a .38-caliber revolver he was not licensed to have.

Rutledge's friends, who were at the scene when he was shot, denied that he pulled a knife on Mendez. A folding knife - in the open position - was found on Rutledge's body.

Judge Shelley Robins New set sentencing for Dec. 21. Mendez remains in custody, as he has since his arrest on March 1, 2008.

Mendez did not appear to display any emotion after the verdict - a marked contrast to Friday, when he was wracked with sobs each time he recounted the shooting.

Mendez faced the five-day trial alone except for a few friends who periodically attended the trial. Mendez said he came to the mainland two years ago to play soccer for his native Puerto Rico.

Rutledge's family - who attended the trial every day - and Rutledge's teenage friends who were eyewitnesses who testified, left the Criminal Justice Center courtroom angry and in tears.

"It's just crazy; I don't understand it. How can he go home, change his clothes, and come back and kill somebody like he did?" said Rutledge's mother, Alisha Rutledge Wilson, referring to the jury's failure to find Mendez guilty of first-degree, or premeditated, murder.

Assistant District Attorney Deborah Watson-Stokes said she was disappointed by the verdict and believed the jury sympathized with Mendez - not his victim.

"There was no indication that anybody ever did anything to [Mendez]," Watson-Stokes said. "They never touched him physically, they never punched him, they never even hit him with a snowball. At best, they talked to him in a disrespectful manner."

Defense attorney Lee Mandell called the outcome "the correct verdict in this case."

Mandell said the verdict meant the jury did not believe Mendez's self-defense claim enough to acquit, but also did not believe Mendez acted with the "malice or hardness of heart" needed for first- or third-degree murder.

The jurors, who deliberated about seven hours over the last two days, were led out of court separately and were not available for comment.

The jury convicted Mendez of carrying an illegal firearm, but acquitted him of possessing an instrument of crime - the gun he used.

"That makes absolutely no sense," added Mandell, when asked about the gun verdict.

In his closing argument, Mandell had told the jury that, despite the lack of independent eyewitness testimony, Mendez's self-defense claim was corroborated by the folding pocketknife that Mendez said Rutledge brandished.

Mandell pointed out that the knife was open when it was found on Mendez's body: "If this type of knife was not out already, how does it come out of his pocket open?"

Watson-Stokes rejected the self-defense claim, telling the jury Mendez could not retreat to the safety of his apartment after an earlier argument with Rutledge, and then return with a gun, reignite the dispute, and shoot the teen as he stood on the front steps of his best friend's house.

To salvage his "street cred," Watson-Stokes said, "he decided that the penalty for disrespecting him on the street, and throwing snowballs at somebody he didn't even know, was death."