Opinion ID: 2309090
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the motion for new trial in respect to the charge of robbery

Text: The defendant argues that the trial justice should have granted his motion for new trial on the robbery charge since the evidence was not sufficient to establish his intent to retain the money seized and permanently to deprive Martel of the same. There is no question that as an element of the crime of robbery, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had the specific intent to deprive the victim permanently and completely of the use of his or her property. State v. Brown, 549 A.2d 1373 (R.I. 1988); State v. Robalewski, 418 A.2d 817 (R.I. 1980). It is further required that in passing upon a motion for new trial, the trial justice must review all the relevant evidence adduced at trial in the light of the charge to the jury and, exercising his or her independent judgment, must pass upon the weight and the credibility of the evidence and must accept or reject conflicting testimony. State v. Dame, 560 A.2d 330, 333 (R.I. 1989). In the case at bar the trial justice in his charge to the jury had stated that in order to find defendant guilty of the charge of robbery, the jurors must find inter alia that there was an intent permanently to deprive Martel of her property. The trial justice was highly impressed with the credibility of the victim in this case and found that her testimony supported each and every element of the crime of robbery. He commented: The testimony was that this defendant walked away with the proceeds from her first paycheck and she never saw those proceeds thereafter. If that doesn't support the issue of depriving her wholly and permanently of her property, I don't know what does. We believe that this common sense evaluation of the evidence clearly indicated that the trial justice performed his duty in accordance with the rule set forth in State v. Dame, supra . In the event that the trial justice, after his or her review of the evidence and testimony, agrees with the verdict of the jury, then the analysis is at an end. He or she may order a new trial only if the trial justice has reached a different conclusion from that of the jury and if it is specifically found that the verdict is against the fair preponderance of the evidence and fails to do substantial justice. Dame, 560 A.2d at 333, (citing State v. Henshaw, 557 A.2d 1204, 1208 (R.I. 1989)). In this case the trial justice did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial.