Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed Raymond McWilliams’s convictions for first-degree robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon in a dwelling. The court rejected challenges to a supplemental jury instruction concerning intent to permanently deprive, the trial justice’s refusal to recuse, and the admission of a prior second-degree murder conviction for impeachment, and affirmed the Superior Court judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the supplemental jury instruction defining intent to permanently deprive adequately stated Rhode Island robbery law.
- Whether the trial justice was required to recuse himself because of credibility and evidentiary comments made during a joint probation-violation and bail hearing.
- Whether the trial justice abused his discretion by admitting McWilliams's prior second-degree murder conviction for impeachment under Rule 609 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence.
- Whether the denial of the motions for acquittal and a new trial required reversal in light of the challenged jury instruction.
Holdings
- The supplemental instruction was legally adequate because intent to permanently deprive may be established by proof that the defendant intended actual permanent deprivation, intended to deprive the owner for an unreasonable length of time, or acted with complete indifference or lack of concern as to whether the owner recovered the property.
- Recusal was not required because the challenged comments were made after the evidence in the probation-violation and bail hearing, in the course of the justice's assigned duties, and did not demonstrate personal bias, prejudice, or a closed mind regarding the later jury trial.
- The trial justice did not abuse his discretion by admitting the prior conviction for impeachment because Rhode Island law contains no per se bar based solely on remoteness, the conviction had probative value in a credibility-centered case, and the jury received an adequate limiting instruction.
Key quotations
“Permanently, when it appears in a statute or in judicial decisions of theft or robbery, is not to be taken literally.” (47 A.3d at 258-259)
“A jury has the right to weigh whether one who repeatedly refuses to comply with society’s rules is more likely to ignore the oath requiring veracity on the witness stand than a law abiding citizen.” (47 A.3d at 262)
Factual background
An intruder entered Erica Boutelle's home while she was with her infant, threatened her with an open box cutter, and took her vehicle after obtaining its keys. The vehicle was later found abandoned, and items from its glove compartment were discovered in a trash bag left with one of the defendant's friends. Boutelle identified McWilliams, and McWilliams admitted that he planned to steal a vehicle, drove the vehicle away, wiped it to remove fingerprints, and had no intent to return it.
Procedural history
A jury convicted McWilliams on May 12, 2009. The Superior Court imposed consecutive and concurrent life sentences and an additional habitual-offender sentence. McWilliams appealed, and the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment, concluding that the challenged supplemental instruction was proper and that the remaining arguments lacked merit or depended on the absence of instructional error.
Remand instructions
The record may be remanded to the Superior Court.