Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Steven Kellam was convicted in the Superior Court of Delaware for racketeering, two counts of first-degree felony murder, and other crimes, resulting in two life sentences plus 770 years in prison. Kellam sought postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, arguing that his convictions were unjust. The Superior Court rejected all but one of his claims, agreeing that the felony-murder jury instruction misstated the law, leading to the vacatur of his felony-murder convictions and life sentences.Kellam appealed the Superior Court's rejection of two grounds for postconviction relief. He argued that the amendment of his indictment was so substantive that it resulted in his conviction for racketeering without proper indictment, undermining the court's jurisdiction. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for his trial lawyer's failure to request a jury instruction on accomplice liability.The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the case. It found that Kellam's challenge to the indictment amendment was procedurally barred because he did not object during the trial and failed to show cause and prejudice. The court also determined that the alleged defect in the indictment was curable and did not divest the Superior Court of jurisdiction.Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court concluded that Kellam's trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to request a Section 274 instruction, as it would not have benefited Kellam and could have undermined the defense's credibility.The State cross-appealed, arguing that the Superior Court erred in vacating Kellam's felony-murder convictions due to the flawed jury instruction. The Delaware Supreme Court agreed, distinguishing this case from Ray v. State, and found that the faulty instruction did not prejudice Kellam's defense. The court reversed the Superior Court's vacatur of Kellam's felony-murder convictions and remanded for reinstatement of those convictions and sentences. View "Kellam v. State" on Justia Law

Tyler Ford was involved in a fatal car accident where he raced his friend, Kyle Fischer, towards a busy intersection, ran a red light, and collided with another vehicle, killing its driver, Nathaniel Milton. Ford was driving at a high speed, weaving through traffic, and did not brake before the collision. He later claimed that his brakes were malfunctioning, but a mechanic found no issues with them. Ford was charged with second-degree murder, driving under the influence, improper passing, and disregarding a red light.The Superior Court of Delaware held a jury trial where Ford was convicted of second-degree murder and related traffic offenses but acquitted of one DUI charge. Ford moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, both of which were denied by the Superior Court. The court found that the evidence supported the jury's verdict and that the jury instructions were appropriate.The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Ford guilty of second-degree murder, as his actions demonstrated a "cruel, wicked, and depraved indifference to human life." The court also found that the jury instructions were correct and that any minor errors in the oral instructions were harmless, as the written instructions provided to the jury were accurate. Additionally, the court ruled that the video of the collision was admissible and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court concluded that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in any of its rulings, and Ford's convictions were upheld. View "Ford v. State" on Justia Law

A Delaware limited partnership, acting as the Members’ Representative for former members of a company, engaged in a merger agreement with a Delaware limited liability company. The merger agreement included specific notice requirements for indemnification claims, which required the acquiring company to provide written notice with reasonable detail and all available material written evidence of the claim. The agreement also stated that failure to comply with these requirements would result in forfeiture of the right to recover from the indemnity escrow fund.The Court of Chancery dismissed the Members’ Representative’s complaint, which sought a declaration that the acquiring company’s claim notice was invalid for failing to meet the contractual requirements. The court held that the notice was valid under the escrow agreement and dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the notice provided sufficient detail and was timely.On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the merger agreement and escrow agreement should be read together as an integrated contractual scheme. The court found that the final sentence of the notice provision in the merger agreement created a condition precedent, requiring compliance with the notice requirements to avoid forfeiture of the right to recover from the indemnity escrow fund. The court determined that it was reasonably conceivable that the acquiring company failed to comply with the notice requirements, particularly the requirement to include all available material written evidence.The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Chancery for further proceedings to determine whether the acquiring company’s noncompliance with the notice requirements could be excused. The court instructed the lower court to consider whether the notice requirements were a material part of the agreed exchange and whether excusing the noncompliance would result in a disproportionate forfeiture. View "Thompson Street Capital Partners IV, L.P. v. Sonova United States Hearing Instruments, LLC" on Justia Law

The buyers of a pharmaceutical business appealed the Superior Court’s dismissal of their fraudulent-inducement and indemnification claims against the sellers. The trial court determined that the buyers had waived their fraudulent-inducement claims and that the indemnification claim was time-barred. The court’s waiver determination was based on its interpretation of a letter agreement between the parties, executed after the buyers’ acquisition of the business and following governmental proceedings involving FDA and Department of Justice investigations. The sellers argued that the letter agreement precluded further litigation, including the buyers’ claims. The buyers contended that the letter agreement only limited the size and scope of claims for losses attributable to the governmental proceedings. The Superior Court agreed with the sellers and dismissed the buyers’ fraudulent-inducement claims.The Superior Court found that the buyers’ indemnification claim was untimely because it was filed more than 60 months after the acquisition closed, as required by the Purchase Agreement. The court rejected the buyers’ argument that the survival period was tolled due to the sellers’ fraudulent concealment, reasoning that the buyers were on inquiry notice of the alleged breaches well within the limitations period.The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the case and held that the buyers’ interpretation of the letter agreement was reasonable, as was the sellers’ and the trial court’s. The court found the relevant provision of the letter agreement to be ambiguous, making it inappropriate to dismiss the buyers’ fraudulent-inducement claim. The court also concluded that the buyers adequately pleaded that the sellers had fraudulently concealed the facts giving rise to the indemnification claim, potentially tolling the survival period. Consequently, the court reversed the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "LGM Holdings, LLC v. Gideon Schurder" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of stalking, harassing, and making terroristic threats against his ex-girlfriend while in prison. The threats, made via telephone and text messages, were numerous and vile, often including a racial slur. The evidence consisted of recordings of phone calls and a log of text messages. The racial slurs were not directed at the ex-girlfriend nor integral to the specific threats.The defendant moved to redact the racial slur from the evidence, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the defendant had no basis to object to the jury hearing the slur since he had used it. The court did not consider whether the probative value of the slur was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect, which was an error.The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the trial court erred by not conducting the required balancing test under Delaware Rule of Evidence 403. The Supreme Court held that the admission of the racial slur was an error but concluded that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence against the defendant. The court also addressed other issues raised by the defendant, including challenges to jury instructions and a double jeopardy claim, but found them without merit.The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that the trial court's error in admitting the racial slur did not affect the outcome of the trial. The court emphasized the importance of conducting a proper balancing test when considering the admissibility of potentially prejudicial evidence. View "Jewell v. State" on Justia Law

Donovan Kent was indicted on six counts, including Rape Second Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact, involving a minor, S.A., who was six years old at the time. The incidents allegedly occurred between July 1, 2017, and October 11, 2017, at S.A.'s aunt's residence and S.A.'s home. During the trial, the State amended one count to change the location of the incident but was denied an amendment to extend the date range. Kent was found guilty of several counts, including Attempted Rape Second Degree and Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child. He was sentenced to 29 years of incarceration followed by probation.Kent's motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial were denied by the Superior Court. On direct appeal, Kent argued that the evidence was insufficient for some convictions and that the jury instructions were confusing. The Delaware Supreme Court rejected these claims and affirmed the Superior Court's rulings.Kent then filed a motion for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his trial counsel unreasonably introduced evidence of a second potential victim and failed to move for judgment of acquittal on the Continuous Sexual Abuse charge. The Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion, finding that trial counsel's strategy was reasonable and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for Continuous Sexual Abuse.The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The court agreed that trial counsel's decision to impeach a witness was a reasonable strategy and that there was no prejudice from not moving for judgment of acquittal, as the evidence supported the jury's findings. View "Kent v. State" on Justia Law

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops therapies for rare disorders and was insured under two director and officer liability insurance programs covering different periods. The first program provided $85 million of coverage for claims made between June 27, 2014, and June 27, 2015 (Tower 1). The second program provided $105 million of coverage for claims made between June 27, 2015, and June 27, 2017 (Tower 2). In 2015, the SEC issued a formal investigation order against Alexion, which led to a subpoena seeking information related to Alexion’s grant-making activities and compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Alexion disclosed this investigation to its Tower 1 insurers.The Superior Court of Delaware found that the SEC investigation and a later securities class action against Alexion were unrelated, placing the securities class action coverage in Tower 2. The court applied the “meaningful linkage” standard and concluded that the connection between the SEC investigation and the securities class action was insufficient to make them related.The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the case and disagreed with the Superior Court’s conclusion. The Supreme Court found that the securities class action was meaningfully linked to the wrongful acts disclosed in Alexion’s 2015 notice to its Tower 1 insurers. Both the SEC investigation and the securities class action involved the same underlying wrongful acts, including Alexion’s grant-making activities and compliance with the FCPA. The Supreme Court held that the securities class action claim should be deemed to have been first made during the Tower 1 coverage period, and therefore, coverage should be under Tower 1. The judgment of the Superior Court was reversed. View "In re Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Insurance Appeals" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the decision by the directors, officers, and stockholders of Tripadvisor, Inc. and Liberty TripAdvisor Holdings, Inc. to change their corporate domiciles from Delaware to Nevada. Plaintiffs, who are stockholders, argue that the Conversions would provide non-ratable benefits to the Defendants, particularly in the form of reduced liability exposure, and thus should be reviewed under the entire fairness standard. Defendants argue that the business judgment rule applies.The Court of Chancery denied Defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs had adequately alleged that Defendants would receive a non-ratable benefit from the Conversions, thus triggering entire fairness review. The court found that the Conversions could provide a material benefit to the Defendants by reducing their litigation risk and that the Complaint supported a reasonable inference that the Conversions were not entirely fair.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware reversed the Court of Chancery's decision. The Supreme Court held that the business judgment rule, not the entire fairness standard, applies to the Conversions. The Court reasoned that the alleged benefits of reduced liability exposure under Nevada law were too speculative and not material enough to constitute a non-ratable benefit. The Court emphasized the importance of temporality in determining materiality, noting that the absence of any existing or threatened litigation weighed heavily against finding a material, non-ratable benefit. The Court also highlighted the principles of comity and the policy of allowing directors flexibility in determining an entity's state of incorporation. View "Maffei v. Palkon" on Justia Law

Conduent State Healthcare, LLC (Conduent) was hired by the State of Texas to administer its Medicaid program. In 2012, Texas began investigating Conduent for allegedly helping orthodontics offices overbill for services. Texas sued several orthodontic providers in 2014, and the providers sued Conduent. Texas terminated its contract with Conduent and sued Conduent under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act. Conduent was insured by AIG Specialty Insurance Company, ACE American Insurance Company, and Lexington Insurance Company, among others. The insurers provided defense coverage for the provider actions but denied coverage for the state action, claiming it involved fraudulent conduct excluded by the policies.The Superior Court of Delaware found that the insurers breached their duty to defend Conduent in the state action. The court also ruled that Conduent was relieved of its duties to cooperate and seek consent before settling with Texas due to the insurers' breach. The jury found that Conduent acted in bad faith and fraudulently arranged the settlement but did not collude with Texas or settle unreasonably. The Superior Court granted a new trial due to evidentiary issues and the jury's inconsistent verdicts.The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court's rulings. It held that the insurers' breach of their duty to defend excused Conduent from its duties to cooperate and seek consent. The court also ruled that the policy's fraud exclusion did not bar indemnity coverage because the settlement was allocated to breach of contract damages. The court found that the evidentiary issues and the jury's inconsistent verdicts justified a new trial to prevent manifest injustice. View "AIG Specialty Insurance Company v. Conduent State Healthcare, LLC" on Justia Law

A father appealed a Family Court order terminating his parental rights. The Department of Services for Children, Youth and their Families (DFS) took custody of the father's son shortly after birth due to the father's mental health issues, substance abuse, unstable housing, employment status, previous involvement with DFS, history of domestic violence, and failure to plan for the child. DFS moved to be excused from case planning with the father under 13 Del. C. § 1103(d), arguing that grounds for termination existed under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(7) because the father's parental rights to another child had been involuntarily terminated in an earlier proceeding. The Family Court granted the motion and later terminated the father's parental rights after finding clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interests of the child.The father argued on appeal that Section 1103(d) is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the case and concluded that Section 1103(d) is not unconstitutional as applied to the father. The court found that the Family Court's analysis under Sections 1103(a)(7) and 1103(d) was supported by the record and that termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The court also rejected the father's argument that the "least restrictive means" standard should be applied, instead following the due process framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge.The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Family Court's judgment, holding that the statutory grounds for termination were met and that the termination was in the best interests of the child. The court found that the father received sufficient process before the termination of his parental rights and that the Family Court's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. View "Schnell v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and their Families" on Justia Law