State v. Lakesha Garrett, 91 A.3d 793

Background

On October 15, 2009 Lakesha Garrett stabbed and killed Gary Mitchell after a violent confrontation in a basement room of a Providence multi‑family dwelling; autopsy showed a fatal chest stab wound and homicide manner of death.
Witnesses (Keneisha Roberts and Norman Cornish) testified Mitchell was choking and punching Garrett, Garrett was shoved into a door that broke, she retrieved a kitchen knife from a counter area, then approached Mitchell and stabbed him multiple times; Roberts was credited as most credible by the trial justice.
Garrett testified she grabbed the knife to brandish and keep Mitchell off her because she feared imminent death or serious bodily injury; her testimony contained inconsistencies and was impeached by prior statements and hospital toxicology showing cocaine.
A jury acquitted Garrett of second‑degree murder but convicted her of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter; the trial justice granted a Rule 29 acquittal as to first‑degree murder but denied Garrett’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
The trial justice, acting as the thirteenth juror, found that although Garrett initially may have been in reasonable fear, a break in the attack (after being shoved into the door), Garrett’s walking toward Mitchell, the presence of an exit and a chair between them, and the nature/depth/direction of the wounds supported a reasonable jury’s finding that the State negated self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Garrett appealed only the denial of the new‑trial motion, arguing (1) her use of deadly force was not excessive given the assault on her and her physical condition, and (2) she lacked a consciously available, open and safe avenue of retreat; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Garrett)	Held
Whether the trial justice erred in denying the Rule 33 motion contesting negation of self‑defense	The State argued the evidence (witness credibility, the break in the attack, Garrett’s advance toward Mitchell, availability of an exit, and fatal downward stab wounds) permitted a reasonable jury to find self‑defense was negated beyond a reasonable doubt	Garrett argued she acted in self‑defense, reasonably fearing imminent death/serious injury after being choked/punched and was not consciously aware of an open, safe avenue of retreat	Affirmed — trial justice properly applied the three‑step new‑trial analysis, credited Roberts, and reasonably concluded the jury could reject self‑defense
Whether Garrett used excessive force given her physical condition from the assault	State: force was excessive given distance, retreat opportunity, and wound characteristics	Garrett: her weakened, disoriented, and exhausted state made deadly force reasonable	Denied — trial justice considered physical condition and concluded a jury could find force was excessive
Whether Garrett was required to retreat before using deadly force	State: evidence showed an available, open avenue (broken door still passable; she was closer to exit)	Garrett: door was broken, debris and stairs made retreat implausible and unsafe	Denied — trial justice reasonably found a jury could conclude an avenue of escape existed and was not sufficiently blocked
Whether the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence in ruling	State: trial justice thoroughly reviewed inconsistencies and witness credibility; no oversight	Garrett: trial justice misconceived or overlooked evidence about door/retreat and her physical incapacity	Held: Garrett failed to show the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence; decision entitled to deference

Key Cases Cited

State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115 (R.I. 2005) (self‑defense permits reasonable belief of imminent harm but only necessary force)
State v. Silvia, 836 A.2d 197 (R.I. 2003) (requirement to retreat if consciously aware of open, safe, available avenue)
State v. Urena, 899 A.2d 1281 (R.I. 2006) (once defendant raises self‑defense, State must negate it beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. D’Amario, 568 A.2d 1383 (R.I. 1990) (emphasis on defendant’s perception at time of the incident for self‑defense analysis)
State v. Pineda, 13 A.3d 623 (R.I. 2011) (defendant who instigates the confrontation cannot invoke self‑defense)
State v. Guerra, 12 A.3d 759 (R.I. 2011) (burden on appellant to show trial justice failed to conscientiously apply new‑trial standards)
State v. Paola, 59 A.3d 99 (R.I. 2013) (deference to trial justice if reasons articulated; trial justice acts as thirteenth juror)