State v. Latraverse
443 A.2d 890 (1982) (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is guilty of a criminal attempt if, with the intent to commit a crime, they take a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of that crime. A substantial step is conduct that is strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose.
Facts:
- Salvatore Lombardi, a Woonsocket police officer, worked undercover using the name Frank Torro.
- As Frank Torro, Lombardi purchased four stolen cars from Paul Latraverse, a used-car dealership owner.
- Following the sales, Latraverse was arrested and charged with receiving stolen goods, and he was awaiting a grand jury hearing while out on bail.
- Latraverse had previously asked Lombardi during an undercover operation if his real name was Salvatore Lombardi.
- Late one night, Lombardi, at his home, saw a Thunderbird known to belong to Latraverse drive past his house.
- Latraverse then parked his car on a nearby perpendicular street, approximately 100 feet from Lombardi's residence, and extinguished the vehicle's lights.
- Lombardi called for a police backup unit.
- When the backup police car approached, Latraverse made a U-turn and drove away from the area.
- Upon stopping Latraverse's car, police found a can of gasoline, a rag, matches, an aluminum baseball bat, a wire coat hanger, and a note that read, “Hi, Sal, now it’s my turn asshole.”
Procedural Posture:
- Paul A. Latraverse was charged with attempting to knowingly and maliciously dissuade a police officer from giving testimony before a grand jury.
- After a jury-waived trial in the Superior Court (trial court), the trial justice found Latraverse guilty.
- After the state presented its evidence, Latraverse moved for a judgment of acquittal, which was presumably denied.
- Latraverse (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to this court (state supreme court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's conduct of reconnoitering a victim's home late at night while in possession of incendiary materials and a threatening note constitute a 'substantial step' sufficient to support a conviction for criminal attempt, rather than 'mere preparation'?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelleher, Justice
Yes. A defendant's conduct of reconnoitering a victim's home while possessing materials for the crime constitutes a substantial step for criminal attempt. The court adopts the Model Penal Code's § 5.01 'substantial step' test for determining criminal attempt, moving away from older, more ambiguous common-law standards. This test focuses on what acts the defendant has already completed that are 'strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose,' rather than on what remains to be done. Here, Latraverse's actions—driving to Lombardi's home late at night, parking nearby in a darkened car, and possessing gasoline, matches, and a threatening note—were overt acts that went beyond mere preparation and were a substantial step toward intimidating the witness. The court also held that Latraverse's driving away upon the arrival of backup police was not a 'voluntary' abandonment of his criminal purpose, as it was motivated by circumstances increasing the probability of detection.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally adopting the Model Penal Code's 'substantial step' test for criminal attempt in its jurisdiction, replacing vaguer common-law doctrines like 'dangerous proximity.' This adoption clarifies the line between non-criminal preparation and a punishable attempt, focusing on objective actions that corroborate criminal intent. The new standard allows for earlier law enforcement intervention and makes it easier for prosecutors to secure convictions against individuals who have demonstrated a clear commitment to a criminal enterprise, even if they are stopped well before the final act. The decision also establishes voluntary abandonment as an affirmative defense, which a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Latraverse