State v. Isom
| Decision Date | 26 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | P1/15-3840BG,No. 2019-318-C.A.,2019-318-C.A. |
| Citation | 251 A.3d 1 |
| Parties | STATE v. Reginald ISOM. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Mariana E. Ormonde, Department of Attorney General, for State.
Camille A. McKenna, Department of Attorney General, for Defendant.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
The issues in this appeal arise from a robbery and the resulting exchange of gunshots. A jury convicted the defendant, Reginald Isom, on eight criminal counts related to the robbery. The defendant now appeals from the judgment of conviction and commitment. He contends that the trial justice erred by refusing to include the withdrawal exception to the initial aggressor rule in his jury instructions on self-defense and by denying the defendant's motions for a bill of particulars and to compel a bill of particulars.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
On the morning of October 23, 2015, defendant knocked on the window of his friend Leroy Dorsey's house in Providence, and, according to Dorsey, the two "just sparked up a conversation." Their discussion concerned the potential commission of a robbery of a pawnshop on Smith Hill. At the time, defendant was living in the back of a nonfunctioning pickup truck owned by Dorsey's grandfather. The defendant was homeless and had dropped out of high school in his final semester. The defendant suggested that Dorsey "open the door and be a look-out" during the robbery. Dorsey agreed, and the pair went across the street to enlist their acquaintance, Andrew McLean, who had previously discussed the robbery with defendant. The group further discussed committing the robbery together. McLean, armed with a gun, then drove the three men to the pawnshop, Capital Gold, on Smith Street in Providence.
The targeted pawnshop was owned by Justin Kemp. To enter the door of Capital Gold, one had to be buzzed in. Once the door closed, it locked automatically, and customers had to be buzzed back out to exit. The store was separated into two parts; the front section was separated from the back section by bulletproof glass and a half-door.
When the trio arrived at Capital Gold at approximately 10:22 a.m., Dorsey buzzed the door and the door was unlocked for him. As they walked in—with Dorsey in front—defendant put gloves on and McLean brandished his weapon. Kemp took out his own gun and pointed it at the three men. Dorsey, who had apparently missed his assignment to hold the front door open, had allowed it to shut behind them. Dorsey raced towards the now-locked door with his hands up, running into McLean and knocking the gun out of his hand. The defendant and McLean then also ran towards the locked door, putting their hands up as they attempted to flee. Dorsey recalled that Kemp then stated, "I should * * * kill you guys," while his gun was pointed at them.
When McLean began looking through the items on the ground where his gun had fallen, Kemp, still holding his gun, approached the men and grabbed McLean by the front of his sweatshirt. The defendant then jumped on Kemp's back and attempted to wrestle the gun away from him, while also swinging a pocketknife at Kemp. At some point during the scuffle, Dorsey was shot in the leg, and he retreated to the back of the pawnshop. McLean was shot in the stomach. Dorsey then returned to the front of the pawnshop and assisted defendant in wrestling with Kemp. Meanwhile, McLean searched the ground for his gun; when he located it, he approached Kemp—who was still wrestling with the other two men—and shot him in the head.
The defendant then picked up Kemp's gun, briefly pointed it towards Kemp's body lying on the ground, and then placed it on a nearby stool. The defendant grabbed Kemp's cell phone and placed it in his pocket. Dorsey then grabbed McLean's gun, and defendant buzzed Dorsey out so he could exit the building.
The defendant next attempted to find video footage and destroy it by pulling down a monitor connected to the cameras. The defendant also turned Kemp's body over; Kemp was then lying face-up on the ground, surrounded by a pool of his own blood. At this time, defendant began to look for his own wallet and pocketknife. Eventually, defendant left with McLean, who had gathered several items from around the pawnshop, including two laptops. This entire event lasted approximately four minutes; Kemp was shot approximately fifty-three seconds after the trio entered the pawnshop.
Vincent Ritter, a letter carrier for the United States Postal Service, was delivering mail on foot in the proximity of Capital Gold. While delivering mail across the street from Capital Gold, Ritter heard approximately five loud bangs, which seemed to come from inside Capital Gold. Ritter continued his deliveries and crossed to the side of the street on which Capital Gold was located. As Ritter approached the curb, he observed a young man, later identified as Dorsey, exiting Capital Gold. Ritter asked Dorsey if "everything [was] okay in there[,]" to which Dorsey responded, "Yes sir, everything is fine." Dorsey then went down a nearby street and tossed the gun.
After Ritter observed Dorsey walking away, he attempted to make a delivery at Capital Gold. Ritter rang the buzzer at Capital Gold and then looked into the window, where he observed Kemp lying in a puddle of blood. Ritter then ran in the direction of his truck—where he had left his phone—stopping a vehicle on his way and asking the motorist to call 911. When Ritter reached his mail truck, he also called 911.
At some point after Ritter called 911, police officers arrived at the scene and observed Kemp lying on the floor inside Capital Gold. The officers requested a fire engine to respond to the scene to effectuate a forced entry, which they did using a master key. Kemp was subsequently transported to Rhode Island Hospital. Providence police officers continued their investigation at the scene, which included extracting video footage from Capital Gold's surveillance system. Officers also responded to a separate location, less than a block away, where a firearm was discovered in a driveway.
Ritter spoke to Detective Jay Simoneau of the Providence Police Department at the scene. Detective Simoneau brought Ritter to a residence about a block away on Ayrault Street, where officers had a suspect in custody. Ritter was shown the suspect, Dorsey, sitting on a side-step of the house; Ritter recognized him as the man he had observed walking out of Capital Gold.
Dorsey was taken to the hospital to treat his gunshot wound, and later to the police station to be questioned. At the police station, Dorsey identified photographs of defendant and McLean as the men who were present at Capital Gold with him. That same day, at 1:38 p.m., McLean was also apprehended. Because McLean had a gunshot wound to his stomach, he was first taken to the hospital.
On July 20, 2016, Dorsey pled guilty to charges of first-degree robbery, conspiracy, discharging a firearm, and felony assault, for which he was sentenced to thirty years to serve at the Adult Correctional Institutions, followed by twenty years of probation. McLean also pled guilty to charges of first-degree robbery, conspiracy, discharging a firearm, felony assault, and carrying a pistol without a license, for which he was sentenced to forty years to serve at the ACI, followed by twenty years of probation.
On November 24, 2015, an indictment was filed against defendant. On December 9, 2016, defendant was identified in an unrelated investigation in Pennsylvania. After defendant gave Pennsylvania officers several false names and birth dates, they ran defendant's fingerprints, which came back with a "hit" for a warrant in Providence, Rhode Island, related to the robbery of Capital Gold.
Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion for a bill of particulars requesting information on each count, regarding: "[t]he exact location of the alleged offense"; "[t]he precise time of day that the offense was allegedly committed"; "[t]he manner and means by which the alleged offense was committed"; "[a] detailed statement of the factual information upon which the State will rely * * *"; and "any information in the prosecutor's files * * * which establishes * * * the existence of any element of any of the alleged charges." The state responded that the relevant facts were contained in their discovery response in the case, which, the state argued, satisfied the bill of particulars. The defendant then moved to compel the state to answer his motion for a bill of particulars. The defendant argued both of these motions in front of the trial justice on June 4, 2018, before the start of trial. However, the trial justice determined that "where the State has provided ample discovery and the indictment contains specific allegations, a bill of particulars is not appropriate." Accordingly, the trial justice denied the motions.
The defendant's trial occurred over six days in June 2018. In exchange for a letter to the parole board, Dorsey testified at defendant's trial. Due to the severity of injuries sustained, Kemp could not remember anything that happened on October 23, 2015, and did not testify to these events; however, he testified as to his injuries and regarding the pawnshop more generally. Ritter and several police officers testified regarding what they saw that day. The defendant also testified in his own defense.
At the conclusion of the trial, defendant requested a self-defense instruction "with regard to the felonious assault, the possession of a handgun as a felony, the discharge of a handgun during a crime of violence, and possession without a license." The state objected to the self-defense instruction, specifically focusing on defendant's proposed instruction regarding a withdrawal exception to the so-called "initial aggressor rule" and stating that there had been no "good-faith withdrawal" in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burkinshaw
...argument in turn.Jury Instructions on Defense to Resisting Arrest This Court reviews jury instructions de novo . E.g. , State v. Isom , 251 A.3d 1, 6 (R.I. 2021). We examine the instructions in their entirety and will not view a challenged portion in isolation from the context of the instru......
-
State v. Beal
...Beal of each criminal charge that he must defend against at trial. Furthermore, the posture of the present appeal is similar to that of Isom. In Isom, the defendant filed a for a Bill of Particulars requesting further factual details for each count of the indictment. Isom, 251 A.3d at 4. Th......