Rouse v. State

The trial court's error in charging that the jury could infer intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's malice.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The appellant, Ronald Rouse, was convicted of malice murder and of two counts of felony murder1 stemming from the shooting of Norris Lee. The felony murder convictions were vacated by operation of law,2 and the trial court sentenced Rouse to life in prison on the malice murder conviction. Rouse has now filed this appeal, contending, among other things, that the trial court gave an improper charge on inferring intent from the use of a deadly weapon, that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for either malice murder or felony murder, and that the trial court erred in allowing certain photographs into evidence.3 We conclude that most of the issues raised by Rouse are without merit, and that, as for one issue raised by Rouse which does have merit, the error that occurred was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm Rouse’s conviction for malice murder.

1. The evidence would have authorized a rational trier of fact to find that Rouse conceived and planned an armed robbery of a store; provided a handgun to the person Torrance Washington who would enter the store and perform the robbery; drove Washington to the store; told Washington to enter the back door of the store and that a person who worked at the store Ricky Wilson4 would open the door for him; and told Washington that if the store manager, Norris Lee, got out of line, Washington should shoot him. Moreover, the jury would have been authorized to find that although Rouse knew that the store manager would be armed, he told Washington that he would not be; that when Washington entered the store, Lee fired at him; and that Washington fired at Lee, hitting him in the chest and causing his death.

Rouse v. State

The trial court's error in charging that the jury could infer intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's malice.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report