Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Law enforcement received anonymous tips in 2021 and 2022 alleging that a Wilmington resident was selling drugs and possessing firearms at his home, which also operated as an unlicensed barbershop. The tips included specific details about the individual’s activities and identifying information. After receiving the July 2022 tip, police corroborated aspects of the information through surveillance, database checks, and two traffic stops involving individuals seen leaving the residence—one was found with marijuana allegedly purchased from the suspect and another fled from police after acting suspiciously. Based on this investigation, police obtained and executed a search warrant, recovering drugs, cash, and a firearm. The individual, a previously convicted felon, was indicted on drug and firearm charges, including possession of a firearm by a person prohibited.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the affidavit supporting the search warrant established probable cause through the combination of the July 2022 tip and corroborating police investigation. At trial, a police officer referred to information from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) identifying the recovered firearm as stolen. The defense did not object to this testimony. The defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, including firearm and drug charges, and sentenced to seventeen years of incarceration.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, the defendant raised claims of hearsay and Confrontation Clause violations due to the NCIC testimony, challenged the denial of his suppression motion, and argued that the statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court applied plain error review to most issues because they were not raised below, and affirmed the convictions. The Court held that there was no plain error in admitting the NCIC evidence, that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and that the firearm prohibition statute was not plainly unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied to the defendant. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Johns v. State" on Justia Law

Police in Wilmington, Delaware, were monitoring social media when a detective saw a video on Instagram that appeared to show Marvin Swanson, a person legally prohibited from possessing firearms, mimicking shooting motions and possibly displaying what looked like a gun magazine in his waistband. Shortly after, a confidential informant, known to be reliable, sent the detective the same video and claimed to have personally observed Swanson in the area with a firearm. The police responded to the location, saw Swanson in the described clothing, conducted a pat down that did not reveal a weapon, but found a loaded handgun in a recycling bin about 25–30 feet away. Swanson was handcuffed and transported to the police station, where he voluntarily provided a DNA sample. DNA testing later matched Swanson to the gun, leading to his arrest for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person prohibited.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware denied Swanson’s motion to suppress the DNA evidence, finding that officers had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and that the continued detention and transport to the station were reasonable, necessary, and related to the investigation. A jury later convicted Swanson.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware found that while the officers had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop based on the informant’s tip and corroborating observations, the subsequent transport of Swanson to the police station amounted to a de facto arrest. The Court held that this arrest was not supported by probable cause because the evidence linking Swanson to the gun was insufficient at the time of the arrest. As a result, the Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court, holding that the motion to suppress should have been granted. View "Swanson v. State" on Justia Law

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

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

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

The defendant, while under the influence of illegal drugs, killed a police officer and assaulted several others. He claimed that his behavior was due to someone substituting bath salts for his methamphetamine, and sought to use a statutory involuntary intoxication defense. The Superior Court granted a motion in limine, preventing the presentation of this defense and deemed the defendant’s evidence inadmissible.The Superior Court of Delaware reviewed the case. The court examined whether a person who knowingly introduces an unlawful intoxicating substance into their body can present an involuntary intoxication defense if the substance or its effects differ from what was anticipated. The court concluded that under Title 11, Section 423 of the Delaware Code, a person who knowingly introduces an unlawful intoxicating substance into their body is precluded from presenting an involuntary intoxication defense unless certain statutory exceptions apply.The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. The court held that the statutory language was unambiguous and that a person who knowingly introduces an unlawful intoxicating substance into their body cannot claim involuntary intoxication unless specific statutory exceptions are met. The court did not address the admissibility of the defendant’s evidence under Rule 702 and 11 Del. C. § 303, as the defense was unavailable as a matter of law. The court also found that precluding the defense did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense. View "Wilkerson v. State" on Justia Law

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Delaware issued a series of emergency orders that included restrictions on religious services. These restrictions, which were lifted by June 2020, limited in-person worship to ten people and imposed various other mandates. Over 18 months later, two religious leaders filed suit in the Court of Chancery seeking injunctive relief against these restrictions, which were no longer in effect. The Court of Chancery dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of future harm.The plaintiffs then transferred their action to the Superior Court, seeking declaratory judgment and damages for alleged violations of their constitutional rights. The Superior Court dismissed the claims, ruling that the requests for declaratory relief were not justiciable because the restrictions had been lifted and there was no ongoing controversy. Additionally, the court found that the Governor was immune from the damages claims under the State Tort Claims Act and the doctrine of qualified immunity.On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court agreed that the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable apprehension of future harm, which is necessary for injunctive relief. The Court also held that the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory judgment were not justiciable because there was no ongoing controversy and the alleged harm could not be redressed by a declaratory judgment. Finally, the Court upheld the Superior Court's finding that the Governor was immune from damages claims, as his actions were discretionary and taken in good faith during an unprecedented public health crisis. View "In re Covid-Related Restrictions on Religious Services" on Justia Law