The Times Herald (Norristown, PA)
Witness: Stowe teen killer seeking release realizes he’s ‘not the angel of death’
NORRISTOWN » A former Stowe man who as a teenager claimed “voices” told him to kill his neighbor in 1993 is on medication and no longer has hallucinations or delusions and has matured after serving 25 years in prison, witnesses testified for defense lawyers seeking parole for the man.
“He’s not experienced hallucinations or delusions for more than a decade. He told me he believed it’s essential to his health, that he remains treated. He wants to remain on medication,” Dr. Susan Rushing, an expert in psychiatry, testified in Montgomery County Court on Thursday during a re-sentencing hearing for convicted juvenile killer Ricky Maurice Roberts.
Rushing, who evaluated Roberts for defense lawyers, testified Roberts “believed that he was one of the bad angels and that he was doing the devil’s work” on June 7, 1993, when he fatally shot his neighbor Brenda J. Rhoades in her East Howard Street home.
“That’s the delusion that he was under when this crime occurred. He is no longer having those delusions. He understands that he is not the angel of death,” Rushing testified, adding Roberts has gained insight into his illness and understands the importance of taking anti-psychotic medications to treat his schizophrenia.
Roberts, who was 17 and a special education student at Pottsgrove High School at the time of the killing, listened attentively as defense witnesses testified he has matured and adjusted well to medications.
Defense lawyers Carrie L. Allman, the chief homicide lawyer in the county public defender’s office, and Assistant Public Defender Daniel Theveny Jr. relied on the testimony of Rushing as well as other mental health experts and prison officials to support their argument for parole for Roberts.
Roberts, now 43, formerly of the 800 block of East Howard Street, pleaded guilty but mentally ill in November 1993 to a charge of general homicide in connection to Rhoades’ killing. Judge Bernard A. Moore had to decide if Roberts was guilty of firstor third-degree murder.
Moore subsequently convicted Roberts of first-degree murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole.
Roberts recently was granted a re-sentencing hearing in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole were unconstitutional for juveniles. In 2016, the high court said the ruling should be applied retroactively.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a separate ruling, said prosecutors bear “the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the juvenile offender is incapable of rehabilitation.”
Judge Gail A. Weilheimer, who has the responsibility to fashion a new sentence, is hearing testimony regarding Roberts’ dysfunctional childhood and Roberts’ conduct during his incarceration as well as the accomplishments and strides he’s made.
The judge is expected to hear testimony on Friday from Rhoades’ relatives, who have come to court each day with a framed photograph of the victim.
“He has avoided rule violations for 13 years. That is a sizable achievement,” testified Dr. Robert Johnson, a prison adjustment expert, adding Roberts “does hold himself accountable for things he’s done in his life.”
Johnson testified that when Roberts initially entered the prison system in 1993 he was “bullied a bit and had to fight back” and was suicidal. But Johnson said Roberts has matured while in prison and has adapted well to a structured lifestyle.
“He’s become a trusted individual within the prison setting,” added Rushing. “He also came to be someone other inmates can turn to when they’re having a tough time.”
Johnson testified Roberts was particularly moved by a film he viewed while in prison, “The Passion of Christ.”
“This film touched him. This, for him, was a transformative experience,” said Johnson, testifying Roberts has become deeply religious.
Describing it as a “positive adjustment,” Johnson opined Roberts presents a low-risk for recidivism if released from prison.
“He appears to be a different person. He is a renewed man, a different man than he was,” Johnson testified under questioning by Theveny.
Roberts, according to testimony, promised examiners he’d “do nothing wrong again.”
But Assistant District Attorney James Price, while cross-examining Johnson, suggested one’s prison adjustment is not the only thing to be considered when forming an opinion about recidivism. Price suggested one’s psychiatric illnesses also must be considered.
Johnson agreed that if Roberts is released from prison a re-entry plan should be in place that is tied to his “unique” circumstances and include follow-up care.
During her questioning of some witnesses, the judge made clear she is concerned about Roberts’ mental health needs and his medication management. Rushing, prison officials and social workers testified for the defense that mental health services, including halfway houses, group homes and counseling, do exist that can assist parolees in maintaining their medication protocols.
Jennifer Vogt, a mental health nurse at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill where Roberts is currently confined, testified Roberts receives an inoculation of an anti-psychotic medication twice a month and has been “100 percent” compliant with his medication schedule.
“He knows exactly when he takes it and he advocates for himself,” Vogt testified under questioning by Allman. “He associates his medication with his success.”
Roberts, according to testimony, obtained his general equivalency diploma since being in prison and has worked in the prison as a janitor or pushing a medication cart for prison officials.
Witnesses appeared to agree that if Roberts is released from prison, he would still need “wrap around services” from a treatment team to ensure he continues to take his medications.
Authorities said Roberts, who was living with his grandparents on East Howard Street at the time of the killing, confessed to shooting the 26-year-old Rhoades once in the head with a .22-caliber handgun after going to Rhoades’ home under the guise of needing a cup of sugar.
Testimony revealed Roberts has consistently measured an IQ of 70 and he was previously diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
During the 1993 trial, psychiatrists for both the prosecution and defense testified that Roberts was extremely dangerous and that he may be inclined to kill again without continuous mental health treatment. The doctors maintained Roberts was not insane at the time of the killing and that he was able to form the specific intent to kill, a requirement for a first-degree murder conviction.