Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The appellant was charged with several serious offenses after allegedly shooting a neighbor during a dispute at their apartment complex. The evidence included eyewitness testimony, gunshot residue on the appellant’s hands, and ammunition found in the appellant’s apartment matching shell casings at the scene. The appellant ultimately entered a no-contest plea to reduced charges, but later sought to withdraw the plea, claiming that his attorney’s actions led him to enter the agreement involuntarily and without full understanding of the case against him.After the appellant attempted to file a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, his defense counsel followed guidance from a prior decision (Reed v. State) by moving to withdraw as counsel and requesting substitute counsel. The Superior Court of the State of Delaware held a hearing, but did not first address the motion to withdraw as counsel. Instead, the court required the appellant to advocate for his own plea withdrawal and ultimately granted the motion to withdraw the plea, finding it had not been entered voluntarily. However, the court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and required the same attorney to represent the appellant at trial, where he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware held that when defense counsel moves to withdraw after a defendant expresses a desire to withdraw a plea, the trial court must first address and resolve the motion to withdraw as counsel, applying the established “good cause” standard. The failure to do so in this case resulted in the defendant being denied his constitutional right to counsel at a critical stage. The Supreme Court reversed the appellant’s convictions and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Bolden v. State" on Justia Law

After a series of shootings in Wilmington, Delaware, Kyair Keys was charged with attempted murder, assault in the first degree, and multiple firearm offenses stemming from incidents between January 14 and January 22, 2022. Surveillance footage and ballistics evidence linked Keys to the shootings, and he was apprehended driving a stolen vehicle. During the investigation, police obtained an Instagram video showing Keys in the stolen car listening to a rap song with lyrics allegedly alluding to violent conduct and referencing his street nickname.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware presided over Keys’s trial. Prior to trial, the State sought to admit the Instagram video, including its audio, as evidence. Keys objected, arguing the song’s lyrics were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The Superior Court viewed the issue through Delaware Rule of Evidence 404(b), which concerns evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, and ultimately overruled Keys’s objection, allowing the jury to hear both the video and police interpretation of the lyrics. The jury found Keys guilty on most counts, and he was sentenced to 47 years of incarceration, followed by probation.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, Keys argued that admitting the audio portion of the video was an abuse of discretion and prejudiced the jury unfairly. The Supreme Court found that while the Superior Court’s decision to admit the audio evidence was questionable and likely should have been excluded due to lack of relevance and prejudicial effect, any error was harmless given the substantial other evidence of guilt. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the convictions. View "Keys v. State" on Justia Law

Three individuals were arrested after a fatal shooting in a Delaware apartment complex. Surveillance and witness testimony established that a caravan of vehicles traveled together to the scene, where two men exited, one remaining in front of a building while the other proceeded to the rear. The man at the front, later identified as the defendant, fired shots into the air, while the other shot and killed the victim, who was not the intended target. The defendant was also seen moving toward the back of the building and holding a firearm near the victim. After the shooting, all involved fled together.A grand jury indicted the defendant and two others for first-degree murder and related offenses. One co-defendant pleaded guilty to lesser charges. Following a bench trial in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, the defendant was found guilty on all counts, while another co-defendant was acquitted. The defendant moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence failed to establish intent to kill the victim, failed to prove accomplice liability, and that he had withdrawn from any complicity before the murder. The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that liability attached based on the intent to promote the criminal conduct, regardless of the victim’s identity, and that the defendant did not effectively withdraw from the joint criminal enterprise.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed de novo the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal and affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that, under Delaware law, a person may be found guilty of first-degree murder as an accomplice if he intentionally aided the commission of the offense, regardless of whether he was the actual shooter, and that withdrawal from complicity requires affirmative acts to sever involvement, which the defendant had not demonstrated. The conviction and judgment were affirmed. View "Henry v. State" on Justia Law

In 2015, a firefighter suffered a compensable back injury while working part-time for a fire company. He settled his workers’ compensation claim related to that incident in 2018 by accepting a lump sum and releasing the insurer from future liability. Years later, in 2023, while working for a different fire department, he experienced another back injury while carrying heavy equipment up stairs during a call. Medical evaluations indicated the new injury involved the same area of his spine as the 2015 incident. The firefighter sought workers’ compensation from his current employer, but the claim was denied.The Industrial Accident Board (IAB) held an evidentiary hearing, receiving testimony from the claimant, his treating physician, and an orthopedic surgeon retained by the employer. The Board concluded that the 2023 incident was a recurrence of the 2015 injury—not an aggravation or a new injury—based primarily on the orthopedic surgeon’s opinion and a comparison of medical imaging. Under Delaware law, liability for a recurrence rests with the insurer on the risk for the original injury, while an aggravation caused by a new workplace incident would be covered by the current employer’s insurer. Because the firefighter had already settled and released all claims relating to the 2015 injury, no compensation was available for the 2023 event. The Superior Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the correct legal standard had been applied and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the IAB and the Superior Court properly applied the standard from Standard Distributing Co. v. Nally for distinguishing between recurrence and aggravation in successive injury cases, and that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the 2023 incident was a recurrence rather than an aggravation or a new injury. View "Corey Ferrell v. City of Wilmington IAB" on Justia Law

The appellant was charged with multiple serious sexual offenses involving a minor, including first-degree rape, child sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust, and unlawful sexual contact. Prior to trial, his defense counsel raised concerns about his mental health and ability to participate meaningfully in his defense, noting that while the appellant understood the legal process and charges, he appeared unable or unwilling to engage in his own defense. The trial court ordered a psychiatric evaluation, which found the appellant incompetent to stand trial due to his refusal to participate. The parties subsequently agreed that he should undergo a competency restoration program.After completing the restoration program, a second psychiatric evaluation was conducted. This evaluation concluded that the appellant’s condition had improved, finding him able to communicate with counsel and participate in his defense. The Superior Court of the State of Delaware reviewed both evaluations and, after a teleconference with counsel, found the appellant competent to stand trial. The court scheduled trial, during which the appellant’s counsel did not again raise the competency issue. The appellant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of ten offenses and sentenced to 216 years of imprisonment.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, the appellant argued that the trial court failed to make adequate factual findings in its competency ruling and that the record as a whole did not support the finding of competency. The Supreme Court reviewed the legal standard de novo and factual findings for support in the record, holding that the trial court relied on competent psychiatric evaluations and statements from counsel, satisfying its duty to make and briefly state factual findings. The Supreme Court found the record supported the determination of competency and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "Castro v. State" on Justia Law

Three siblings, who are stockholders in a closely held, family-run Delaware corporation that streams sports content, sought access to the company’s books and records. The siblings were dissatisfied with the lack of financial information and annual meetings after their brother was replaced as CEO. Their motivation was to value their shares and possibly sell them. Over a ten-month period, the siblings made three separate demands under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, each seeking inspection of various corporate documents. The company denied all three demands, asserting that each failed to satisfy the statute’s procedural “form and manner” requirements for such demands.After the company denied the demands, the siblings filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery to compel inspection. The matter was first reviewed by a Magistrate in Chancery, who found that the third demand satisfied the statutory waiting period and that the siblings had a proper purpose for inspection, granting most of the requested documents except for tax-related items. The Magistrate also ordered the parties to negotiate a confidentiality agreement. Both parties filed exceptions to the Magistrate’s report, and the Court of Chancery conducted further review.The Court of Chancery ultimately found that all three demands failed to meet Section 220’s procedural requirements. It ruled that the first demand was deficient for lack of oath, power of attorney, and identification of stockholders; the second demand failed because affidavits verifying the demand were signed before the demand was finalized, with no evidence the verified version matched the final one; and the third demand was rejected because the siblings applied to the court before the statutory five-day waiting period had elapsed. Judgment was entered for the company.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery’s decision. It held that strict compliance with Section 220’s form and manner requirements is necessary, and that the siblings failed to meet those requirements for all three demands. View "Martin Floreani v. FloSports, Inc." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a Delaware law, House Bill 242 (HB242), which permits New Castle County school districts to set different property tax rates for residential and non-residential properties for the 2025-2026 school year. This legislation was enacted after a county-wide property reassessment revealed a significant shift in the tax base, resulting in higher taxes for residential properties. In response to public concern, HB242 allowed school districts to implement a split-rate system, reducing residential rates and increasing non-residential rates, with the stipulation that non-residential rates could not exceed twice the residential rate and that total projected revenue could not surpass the amount projected under the original tax warrant. Subsequent corrections to property classifications led to a net increase in projected tax revenue.The plaintiffs, four property-related associations, challenged HB242 in the Court of Chancery, arguing that it violated the Uniformity Clause of the Delaware Constitution and a “revenue neutrality” requirement in the statute. The Court of Chancery rejected these claims, finding that the General Assembly has the authority to create reasonable property classifications for tax purposes and that the statute’s use of “projected” rather than “actual” revenue allowed for adjustments due to classification corrections.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the constitutionality of HB242 and the statutory interpretation issues de novo. The Court held that the Uniformity Clause does not prohibit reasonable legislative classifications of property for taxation, provided tax rates are uniform within each class. The Court also determined that HB242’s revenue limitation applies to projected, not actual, revenue, and that corrections to property classifications do not violate the statute. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. View "Newark Property Association v. State" on Justia Law

A confidential informant reported seeing Anthony Miller, known as “Thugsy,” carrying a handgun and selling drugs in Wilmington, Delaware. Police surveilled the area, observed Miller, and attempted to arrest him. Miller fled, resisted arrest, and was subdued. Officers recovered a loaded handgun and drugs, including pills that tested positive for MDMA and cocaine. Miller admitted to selling MDMA and possessing the firearm. He was initially indicted by a New Castle County grand jury for several offenses, including Drug Dealing MDMA (a Class B felony). A subsequent reindictment changed the main drug charge to Drug Dealing Methamphetamine (a Class C felony), reflecting the actual substance involved.Before his suppression motion was heard, Miller entered a plea agreement in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, pleading guilty to Drug Dealing Methamphetamine, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and Resisting Arrest. Due to clerical errors, the plea paperwork and colloquy incorrectly identified the drug dealing charge as a Class B felony with a higher sentencing range, even though the court read the correct substance and quantity from the reindictment. Miller was sentenced to a total of seven years of unsuspended prison time. He did not seek to withdraw his plea but appealed, arguing that his constitutional right to be indicted by a grand jury was violated because he pled guilty to an unindicted, more serious offense.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case for plain error, as Miller had not raised the issue below. The court held that Miller’s substantial rights were not affected because he received significant benefits from the plea, including immediate sentencing and avoidance of a much longer potential sentence. The court found no plain error and affirmed the conviction, but remanded to the Superior Court to consider Miller’s pending motion for sentence reduction. View "Miller v. State" on Justia Law

A man was shot and killed outside a convenience store in Wilmington, Delaware. Surveillance footage captured the masked shooter’s movements before and after the incident, and police identified several witnesses, including Darnella Spady, who was present at the scene. During a police interview, Spady identified the shooter as “Gunner,” later determined to be Kevin Berry, and described her interactions with him. However, at trial, Spady was uncooperative, claimed memory loss due to drug use, and stated she could not recall the shooting or her prior statement to police. The prosecution sought to admit Spady’s out-of-court statement as substantive evidence under 11 Del. C. § 3507.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware conducted a bench trial after Berry waived his right to a jury. The court admitted Spady’s prior statement over Berry’s objection, finding that the State had established the necessary foundation under Section 3507 and that the statement was voluntary. The court found Berry guilty of first-degree murder and related weapons charges, and sentenced him to life plus ten years. Berry appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting Spady’s statement and urging the Delaware Supreme Court to overturn its recent precedent in McCrary v. State, which clarified the foundational requirements for admitting such statements.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. The Court held that there was no urgent reason or clear error warranting a departure from McCrary v. State, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Spady’s statement. The Court concluded that the State’s questioning satisfied the statutory requirements, and Berry’s confrontation rights were not violated. The convictions were affirmed. View "Berry v. State" on Justia Law

A masked assailant entered a jewelry store in Delaware, assaulted the owner with a gun and hammer, smashed display cases, and stole jewelry before fleeing. The owner, Chang Yen Suh, suffered significant injuries requiring hospitalization and months of rehabilitation. Calvin Ushery was indicted for multiple offenses, including first-degree robbery, first-degree assault of a person over 62, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, and other related charges. After a mistrial in the first jury trial, a second jury trial resulted in Ushery’s conviction on three counts. The State dismissed several other charges, and Ushery was sentenced as a habitual offender to substantial prison terms.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware presided over both trials and sentencing. Ushery appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to properly admonish the jury against pre-deliberation discussions and exposure to extrajudicial information, and that the court erred by not investigating or excusing an alternate juror who submitted a note raising questions about the evidence and his own hearing difficulties. Ushery claimed these failures violated his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury and requested the adoption of a presumption of juror misconduct when admonishments are lacking.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case for plain error, as Ushery’s claims were not raised at trial. The Court held that, although daily admonishments are recommended, the instructions given were sufficient and did not constitute plain error. The Court also found no evidence of juror misconduct or bias, and that the trial court acted within its discretion regarding the alternate juror. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment of conviction. View "Ushery v. State" on Justia Law