State v. Reginald Isom, 251 A.3d 1

On October 23, 2015, Reginald Isom entered Capital Gold pawnshop with Leroy Dorsey and Andrew McLean to commit a robbery; McLean was armed.
A confrontation with owner Justin Kemp escalated: a scuffle occurred, McLean was shot and later shot Kemp in the head; Isom picked up Kemp’s gun, placed it on a stool, took Kemp’s phone, and helped remove items from the store.
The entire incident was largely captured on surveillance video; Dorsey and McLean later pled guilty to related charges.
At trial Isom requested a self-defense instruction including the withdrawal exception to the initial-aggressor rule; the trial justice gave a self-defense instruction but refused the withdrawal-exception instruction.
Isom was convicted on multiple counts (including first-degree robbery, discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence, assault with a dangerous weapon, and unlawful possession counts) and sentenced; he appealed the refusal to instruct on the withdrawal exception and the denial of a bill of particulars.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, rejecting Isom’s arguments on both the jury instruction and bill-of-particulars issues.

Issue	State's Argument	Isom's Argument	Held
Whether the trial justice erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the withdrawal exception to the initial-aggressor rule for self-defense	RI does not recognize the withdrawal exception here; even if it did, facts do not show good-faith withdrawal	Isom contends he surrendered, communicated withdrawal (hands up, moving to door), yet Kemp continued to use deadly force	Court declined to adopt the exception in this case and held that, even if recognized, Isom failed to prove communicated, good-faith withdrawal or dissipation of the danger; no reversible error
Whether the trial justice abused discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars	Indictment and state discovery (including surveillance video) were sufficiently specific; no further particulars required	Isom argued the bill was needed because multiple acts could underlie the assault count and to avoid surprise	Denial affirmed: indictment and discovery provided adequate notice; no abuse of discretion

Rowe v. United States, 164 U.S. 546 (U.S. 1896) (early statement that communicated withdrawal may be for the jury to consider)
United States v. Desinor, 525 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2008) (withdrawal requires clear communication and good-faith attempt to withdraw; danger must dissipate)
State v. Diggs, 592 A.2d 949 (Conn. 1991) (doctrine of communicated withdrawal requires clear notice to the victim)
State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115 (R.I. 2005) (initial-aggressor principle: one who instigates combat may not claim self-defense)
State v. Martin, 68 A.3d 467 (R.I. 2013) (trial justice must give self-defense instruction even if evidence is slight)
State v. Mollicone, 654 A.2d 311 (R.I. 1995) (purpose and scope of a bill of particulars; denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)