State v. Tonya Withers, 172 A.3d 765

In Feb. 2014, landlord Maria DiPaola and employee Paul Barros encountered former tenant Tonya Withers and an accomplice at a Providence duplex; DiPaola alleges Withers pushed her down the interior stairs causing injury.
DiPaola gave a written statement to police and told Officer Auclair she was pushed; Barros testified he found DiPaola on the floor upset and saying Withers had pushed her.
At trial DiPaola’s testimony contained inconsistencies about whether the fall occurred on interior or exterior stairs and about the mechanics of the fall; the trial justice found parts of her trial testimony confusing.
A jury convicted Withers of simple assault under G.L. 1956 § 11-5-3; she was sentenced to probation, ordered to undergo mental-health counseling, and subject to a no-contact order.
Withers moved for a new trial and sought to discharge counsel and proceed pro se mid-trial; the trial justice denied both requests.
On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, giving deference to the trial justice’s credibility assessments and applying de novo review to the pro se-waiver inquiry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Withers)	Held
Whether trial justice erred in denying motion for new trial after finding the primary eyewitness (DiPaola) partly not credible	The evidence (including officer and Barros testimony and DiPaola’s statements to them) sufficed for a reasonable jury; trial justice properly found reasonable minds could differ	Withers argued the trial justice discredited the only witness who could prove assault and thus should have granted a new trial	Affirmed: trial justice did not clearly err; circumstantial evidence and other credible witnesses supported the verdict
Whether trial justice erred by denying Withers’ mid‑trial request to proceed pro se	The request was untimely and not a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver given her absence for much of trial and inability to show she could do better than counsel	Withers sought to discharge counsel and represent herself, asserting dissatisfaction with representation	Affirmed: trial justice reasonably found waiver not knowing/intelligent (applied totality of circumstances)

State v. Cruz, 109 A.3d 381 (R.I. 2015) (de novo review of validity of waiver to proceed pro se and guidance on waiver standards)
State v. Chabot, 682 A.2d 1377 (R.I. 1996) (six-factor guide for evaluating knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver of counsel)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation; waiver must be knowing and intelligent)
State v. Kizekai, 19 A.3d 583 (R.I. 2011) (deference to trial justice’s ruling on a new trial when trial justice articulates sufficient reasoning)
State v. Whitaker, 79 A.3d 795 (R.I. 2013) (upholding denial of new trial where trial justice discredited some witnesses but found circumstantial evidence sufficient)