State v. Delestre
2012 R.I. LEXIS 6
R.I.2012Background
- Defendant Gilbert Delestre was convicted by a Providence County jury on December 4, 2008, of second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, and sentenced to life plus ten years.
- On appeal, Delestre challenged the aiding-and-abetting instruction as constitutionally defective and the denial of a unanimity instruction as to the theory of guilt.
- The homicide involved three-year-old TJ Wright, who died October 31, 2004, after injuries allegedly inflicted in an Woonsocket apartment by Delestre and Katherine Bunnell.
- Babysitter Kayla testified to raucous behavior, physical abuse, and milk being poured on TJ, with TJ subsequently suffering severe head and bodily trauma and dying days later.
- The jury acquitted Delestre of first-degree murder but found him guilty of second-degree murder and conspiracy; the trial judge instructed on aiding-and-abetting and did not give a unanimity instruction as to theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aiding-and-abetting instruction | Delestre contends the instruction violated due process by being conclusive and shifting burden. | Delestre argues the instruction mirrors forbidden presumptions from Amado and Sandstrom and misstates intent. | Instruction did not violate due process; it adequately reflected Rhode Island law and did not shift burden. |
| Unanimity as to theory of guilt | Delestre claims jurors must unanimously agree on the theory (principal, aider/abettor, coconspirator). | Delestre argues lack of unanimity instruction allowed non-unanimous theory verdicts. | No unanimity required as to theory; only bottom-line elements of second-degree murder must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hazard v. State, 745 A.2d 748 (R.I. 2000) (prosecution must prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Sivo v. State, 925 A.2d 901 (R.I. 2007) (due process requires proof of each element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Davis, 877 A.2d 642 (R.I. 2005) (manner of participation not an element; Sullivan rule context)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (unanimity not required on underlying theory as long as bottom-line elements proven)
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1999) (unanimity as to means not required where elements are proven beyond a doubt)
- Amado, 433 A.2d 233 (R.I. 1981) (conclusive presumptions in aiding-and-abetting are forbidden)
- Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1979) (mandatory presumption of intent violates due process)
- State v. Gillespie, 960 A.2d 969 (R.I. 2008) (second-degree murder categories and malice aforethought; statutory framework)