## Facts

- An undercover Woonsocket police detective purchased four stolen cars from Paul A. Latraverse, a used-car dealer; Latraverse was arrested, arraigned, and released on bail pending grand jury proceedings related to the undercover transactions.
- In the early morning of June 27, 1980, the detective heard a car with a loud muffler and observed a late-model Ford Thunderbird with a dealer plate assigned to Latraverse’s business.
- The detective saw the Thunderbird circle the area and park nearby with its lights off, across from his residence, and he monitored it while calling for police backup because of prior threats connected to his undercover work.
- When a police cruiser approached, the Thunderbird made a sharp U-turn and drove away; police pursued and stopped it.
- A search of the car revealed a can of gasoline, a rag, matches, a baseball bat, a stretched clothes hanger consistent with gaining car entry, and a threatening note addressed to the detective warning him not to testify before the grand jury.
- Latraverse was charged under G.L. 1956 § 11-32-5 with attempting knowingly and maliciously to dissuade a police officer from testifying before a grand jury.
- After a jury-waived trial, the Superior Court found Latraverse guilty, rejecting his claim that he had abandoned any criminal plan; Latraverse appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Latraverse’s conduct constituted a criminal attempt to dissuade or intimidate a witness, rather than mere preparation.
2. Whether Rhode Island recognizes voluntary abandonment (renunciation) as a defense to attempt and, if so, whether the trial court was required to consider it on this record.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held the evidence was sufficient to establish attempt because Latraverse took a substantial step strongly corroborative of an intent to intimidate or dissuade the witness.
- The court held the trial justice erred by treating abandonment as categorically unavailable and by not addressing whether Latraverse’s departure reflected a voluntary and complete renunciation.
- The judgment was not left standing on a record that foreclosed consideration of abandonment; the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the recognition and evaluation of that defense.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal attempt requires intent to commit the target offense plus conduct that goes beyond preparation; Rhode Island applied a “substantial step” standard requiring acts strongly corroborative of the criminal purpose.
- Attempt liability does not require the defendant to reach the final moments before completion; police intervention that prevents completion does not negate attempt where the substantial-step threshold has been crossed.
- Voluntary abandonment may be a defense to attempt when the renunciation is voluntary and complete, not the product of increased risk of apprehension, external intervention, or a decision merely to postpone or change methods.
- When evidence supports a claim of abandonment, the fact-finder must evaluate it as a factual matter rather than rejecting it as unavailable as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Latraverse’s actions—traveling to the witness’s residence at night with tools consistent with intended harm and a note threatening the witness’s testimony—were sufficient to prove attempt, but remanded because the trial court improperly foreclosed the potentially available defense of voluntary abandonment and failed to make the necessary factual determination.


State v. Latraverse, 443 A.2d 890 (R.I. 1982)