State v. Juan Gibson, 291 A.3d 525

Background

Two home invasions at Jeffrey Lebrun’s Pawtucket residence (May 19, 2013 and July 28, 2013); the July invasion resulted in Jeffrey’s death by gunshot.
May incident: struggle with masked intruder; police recovered a black backpack containing burglary tools and a black sweatshirt; DNA testing linked Gibson to the sweatshirt, gloves, paper towel, and some cords found in the backpack.
July incident: two men in black broke in, gunshots heard, two men fled; an eyewitness saw two runners; postmortem evidence and DNA from under Jeffrey’s fingernails linked Gibson to the July scene.
Indictment charged Gibson with counts tied to May (burglary, conspiracy, assault) and July (felony murder—felony murder during an attempted robbery—conspiracy, discharging a firearm); some firearm counts later dismissed; jury convicted on remaining counts and Superior Court imposed consecutive life sentences plus additional years.
On appeal Gibson argued (1) the trial justice omitted a required robbery-specific-intent jury instruction, and (2) the trial justice erred denying his Rule 29 (judgment of acquittal) and Rule 33 (new trial) motions. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gibson)	Held
Whether the trial justice erred by omitting a robbery-specific-intent jury instruction	Omission was not reversible because the charged offenses either do not require the robbery-specific-intent instruction (attempt, conspiracy) or the jury was otherwise instructed on the requisite mental states	Omission deprived jury of guidance on the essential robbery element (specific intent to permanently deprive), affecting burglary, assault with intent to rob, felony murder (predicate robbery), and conspiracy	No reversible error. Instructions, read as a whole, adequately covered the law: specific-intent instruction unnecessary for burglary (intent assessed at entry), excluded from assault-with-intent (lesser offense), unnecessary for felony murder here because the predicate was attempted robbery (different intent, and attempt instruction was given), and conspiracy is a distinct offense that does not require proving every element of the underlying substantive crime
Whether the trial justice erred in denying Gibson’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to felony murder and conspiracy	Evidence (DNA links, witness sightings, Gibson’s knowledge of victim’s cash/marijuana, similarities to May incident) sufficiently supported inferences of attempted robbery and conspiracy	Evidence was speculative and insufficient to prove intent to rob or an agreement to rob on July 28	Denial affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, reasonable jurors could infer attempted robbery and a conspiracy; circumstantial evidence sufficed
Whether the trial justice erred in denying Gibson’s motion for a new trial on the July-related counts	(Implicit) The evidence weight supported convictions	Evidence was meager; jury verdict against weight of evidence	Denial affirmed. Trial justice performed independent (13th juror) review, assessed witness credibility and weight of evidence, and did not overlook or misconceive material evidence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Robalewski, 418 A.2d 817 (R.I. 1980) (specific-intent element of robbery—permanent deprivation—must be instructed when robbery is the principal charge)
State v. Hazard, 745 A.2d 748 (R.I. 2000) (reaffirming specific-intent element of robbery)
State v. Latraverse, 443 A.2d 890 (R.I. 1982) (adopting Model Penal Code approach to criminal attempt)
State v. LaPlume, 375 A.2d 938 (R.I. 1977) (conspiracy is a separate offense distinct from the substantive crime)
State v. Brown, 549 A.2d 1373 (R.I. 1988) (distinguishing robbery from assault with intent to rob; burden of proof principles)
State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097 (R.I. 2005) (felony murder requires proof of elements of the predicate felony or attempt)
Lopes v. State, 111 A.3d 344 (R.I. 2015) (burglary requires felonious intent at the time of breaking and entering)
State v. Lopez, 45 A.3d 1 (R.I. 2012) (jury instructions reviewed in their entirety; court will affirm if instructions adequately cover the law)