State v. Irving Johnson: Enforcing Rule 12 Notice Requirements and Declining Recognition of a Claim-of-Right Defense in Trespass

Introduction

In State v. Irving Johnson, 2025 R.I. LEXIS ___, the Rhode Island Supreme Court considered whether a defendant convicted of vandalism and willful trespass is entitled to a jury instruction on an unrecognized “claim-of-right” defense when he failed to lodge his proposed instructions in the trial record. Irving Johnson was tried in Washington County Superior Court for damaging a greenhouse and entering property owned by the Narragansett Indian Church Board on July 12, 2020. After the State rested, the defense sought dismissal under R.I. Super. R. Crim. P. 29 and indicated it would assert a claim-of-right defense. The trial justice denied the motion, reserved ruling on the jury instruction, then ultimately excluded the instruction for non-compliance with Rule 12 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. Johnson was convicted on both counts, and on appeal argued (1) the exclusion of his claim-of-right instruction was error and (2) the record’s incompleteness should not bar our review.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the convictions. It held:

Because Johnson did not file his proposed jury instructions (nor the trial justice’s draft) as part of the appellate record, he waived his right to challenge their exclusion. Gardiner v. State, 895 A.2d 703, 716 (R.I. 2006).
Even if properly before the Court, a claim-of-right defense to trespass has not been recognized by Rhode Island jurisprudence. State v. Robinson, 297 A.3d 80, 95 (R.I. 2023).
Rule 12(a) imposes a duty to disclose affirmative defenses before trial. While the State later conceded on appeal that Rule 12 does not automatically bar a permissible defense, the lower court’s refusal to submit an unrecognized defense was correct.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Rule 12(a), R.I. Super. R. Crim. P. – Requires defense counsel to disclose all defenses before trial. The trial justice relied on this rule to exclude the claim-of-right instruction.
State v. Lambrechts, 585 A.2d 645 (R.I. 1991) – The defendant invoked this case to argue that affirmative defenses need not be raised pre-trial. The Supreme Court noted Lambrechts does not overrule Rule 12’s notice requirement.
State v. Gardiner, 895 A.2d 703 (R.I. 2006) – Holds that an incomplete record (e.g., missing jury instructions) results in waiver on appeal. The Court applied this binding rule to affirm Johnson’s convictions.
State v. Garcia, 883 A.2d 1131 (R.I. 2005) – Affirms the principle that a defendant is entitled to instructions on all recognized defenses supported by evidence. The Court contrasted that settled rule with the novel status of a claim-of-right defense here.
State v. Verrecchia, 766 A.2d 377 (R.I. 2001), quoting Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988) – Explains that an instruction must be given only for “any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor.”
State v. Robinson, 297 A.3d 80 (R.I. 2023) – Confirms the duty to ensure jury instructions properly reflect established law. The Court observed that claim-of-right in trespass had never been recognized, so no guidance existed.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rested on two pillars:

Record Completeness and Waiver: Rhode Island appellate practice demands that litigants furnish the Supreme Court with a “complete record” of materials necessary to review alleged errors. Gardiner, 895 A.2d at 716. Johnson failed to ensure that either his own proposed instruction or the trial justice’s draft was before the Court. Without those documents, the Supreme Court could not meaningfully assess whether the tendered instruction accurately stated Rhode Island law on claim of right. Under long-standing precedent, that failure constitutes a waiver of any challenge to the exclusion.
Non-Recognition of Claim-of-Right Defense: Even if properly preserved, affirmative defenses must be both timely raised and legally cognizable. Verrecchia, 766 A.2d at 390. The Court observed that since self-defense and necessity have clear roots in criminal jurisprudence, they warrant jury instructions when supported by evidence. In contrast, a claim-of-right theory—which posits that a defendant believed he had legal entitlement to enter or use property—has never been adopted in Rhode Island trespass law. The Supreme Court declined to be the first to recognize and define that defense in the context of a jury instruction.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies two important points:

Strict Compliance with Rule 12: Defense counsel must lodge all affirmative defenses—including their proposed jury instructions—before trial. Last-minute or trial-only proffers may be rejected for non-compliance.
Caution Against Novel Defenses: Attorneys seeking to introduce new theories (like claim of right in trespass) should secure recognition—via statute or persuasive authority—before relying on them at trial. Otherwise, trial courts and appellate courts may decline to instruct on defenses that lack established precedent.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Claim-of-Right Defense: A theory under which a defendant asserts a good-faith belief that he had legal permission to enter or use another’s property. Not recognized in Rhode Island trespass law.
Rule 12(a) Notice Requirement: A procedural rule that mandates disclosure of all defenses and objections before trial commences. Failure to comply may result in exclusion of the defense.
Rule 29 Motion to Dismiss: A request made after the State rests its case, arguing that the evidence—even if viewed in the light most favorable to the State—is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Waiver via Incomplete Record: If a party does not submit necessary documents (e.g., proposed jury instructions) to the appellate court, any error related to those documents is deemed waived and cannot be reviewed.
Jury Instruction: The directions given by a judge to the jury explaining the applicable law and defining the issues on which the jury must deliberate.

Conclusion

State v. Irving Johnson affirms the convictions for vandalism and willful trespass and settles two critical points in Rhode Island criminal practice. First, any affirmative defense must be timely disclosed under Rule 12 and accompanying jury instructions must be lodged in the trial record to preserve appellate review. Second, a claim-of-right defense to trespass remains unrecognized in Rhode Island law; the Supreme Court declines to recognize it for the first time absent legislative or longstanding judicial authority. Trial counsel and litigants should heed these requirements to ensure that all legally viable defenses are fairly presented—and properly preserved—for jury consideration and appellate scrutiny.