199 A.3d 1021
R.I.2019Background
- In 2006 Kendall Whitaker was convicted of murder, robbery, multiple weapons offenses, and related counts for a 2002 shooting that killed Joel Jackson; two co-defendants (Robinson and Isom) testified against him in exchange for leniency.
- Trial evidence included testimony that Whitaker brought a .22 pistol to the scene, drew/pointed a gun during the struggle, and that one of the victims (Jackson) was fatally shot.
- On direct appeal Whitaker argued (inter alia) that there was insufficient evidence to support aiding-and-abetting and that the aiding-and-abetting jury instruction was erroneous; this Court rejected the instructional challenge and affirmed the convictions.
- After Rosemond v. United States (2014), Whitaker sought postconviction relief asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a Rosemond-style instruction (requiring advance knowledge that a confederate would carry/use a gun) and for failing to challenge sufficiency under an aiding-and-abetting theory.
- The Superior Court granted relief, vacating several counts, concluding counsel was deficient for not invoking Rosemond and for not challenging sufficiency; the State appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court quashed the postconviction grant, holding Rosemond does not apply to Rhode Island aiding-and-abetting law, that Rosemond is not a new retroactive rule for state convictions, and that the record contained sufficient evidence to support aiding-and-abetting convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Whitaker) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Rosemond-based jury instruction | Counsel should have requested an instruction requiring proof of advance knowledge that a confederate would carry/use a gun | Rosemond applies only to federal §924(c) aiding-and-abetting; not applicable to Rhode Island law, and counsel not deficient | Court held counsel not deficient; Rosemond does not govern state aiding-and-abetting and is inapplicable here |
| Whether Rosemond should be applied retroactively on collateral review | Rosemond announced a rule that should invalidate convictions finalized before Rosemond | Rosemond did not announce a new rule for state law and is not retroactively applicable to state convictions | Court held Rosemond did not create a new retroactive rule for state cases |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge sufficiency of evidence for aiding-and-abetting | Counsel should have challenged sufficiency because jury acquitted conspiracy and aiding evidence overlapped | There was independent, sufficient evidence (witnesses that Whitaker brought/drew a gun, expressed intent, etc.) to support aiding-and-abetting | Court held counsel not ineffective; evidence was sufficient to support aiding-and-abetting convictions |
| Whether Rosemond changed the mens rea required under Rhode Island aiding-and-abetting doctrine | Whitaker argued Rosemond’s advance-knowledge requirement reflected constitutional mens rea necessary for accomplice liability | State argued Rhode Island law already requires sharing criminal intent and does not require Rosemond’s advance-knowledge formulation; Rosemond interprets federal statute only | Court held Rosemond interprets federal statute and does not displace Rhode Island precedent on accomplice liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (U.S. 2014) (interpreting federal §924(c) to require advance knowledge of a confederate’s plan to carry/use a gun for accomplice liability)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Whitaker v. State, 79 A.3d 795 (R.I. 2013) (Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion affirming Whitaker’s convictions on direct appeal and addressing aiding-and-abetting instruction)
- State v. Delestre, 35 A.3d 886 (R.I. 2012) (Rhode Island standard for aiding-and-abetting: community of unlawful purpose and shared criminal intent)
- Pailin v. Vose, 603 A.2d 738 (R.I. 1992) (adopting Teague/Griffith framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)