Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant-appellant Deshaun Harris was convicted of first degree robbery, first degree assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, burglary, possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, aggravated menacing, wearing a disguise during the commission of a felony, conspiracy, theft, aggravated intimidation, and breach of conditions of bond during Commitment. After Harris’s arrest, before trial, one of the victims was confronted by individuals who offered him money to sign papers stating that Harris was not the perpetrator of the attack. They threatened the victim, warning him that if he testified on the stand or identified Harris, they would kill his family and him. At trial, the State produced three documents purporting to be affidavits of the victim recanting his identification of Harris. Each document was in a different format — one was written in cursive, one was printed, and one was typed. The victim testified that he did not draft any of the documents, but that he signed the typed affidavit under the threat of being killed. During its investigation, the State found multiple prison phone calls between a person believed to be Harris and an unidentified woman. The State sought to introduce certain portions of the calls to corroborate the victim's testimony and to contextualize the three affidavits wherein the victim had recanted his identification of Harris. These recordings were admitted to the trial record over Harris' objection, and he appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court the trial court erred in so admitting them. The Supreme Court found no merit to the appeal and affirmed Harris’s conviction and sentence. View "Harris v. Delaware" on Justia Law

After defendant-appellant Roderick Owens was convicted of possession of a firearm by a person prohibited and, separately, of possession of ammunition by a person prohibited, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed those convictions on direct appeal, Owens moved for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Owens claimed the proceedings leading to his convictions were unfair in a way that was not remediable on direct appeal. Owens also complained that his trial counsel failed to investigate and present friendly witnesses at a hearing on a motion to suppress. These deficiencies, according to Owens, amounted to ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and that his case would have been resolved more favorably had his counsel more ably assisted him. The superior court rejected Owens’s bid to have his convictions set aside on those grounds. To this, the Supreme Court concurred: Owens’s trial counsel conveyed all plea offers to Owens is supported by trial counsel’s affidavit and entitled to our deference, and Owens’s trial counsel’s analysis of the relevance of the potential witnesses’ testimony and his decision not to call them was reasonable. View "Owens v. Delaware" on Justia Law

In 1983, Alan Bass was convicted by jury on two counts of first degree rape, three counts of first degree kidnapping, two counts of first degree robbery, two counts of second degree robbery, and one count of third degree burglary. The superior court sentenced Bass to five consecutive life sentences plus 45 years in prison. The convictions were affirmed in 1985. Bass thereafter applied for post-conviction relief, relying in part on the announcement by the FBI and Innocence Project of a years long investigation into whether trial testimony by forensic examiners contained erroneous statements regarding microscopic hair comparison analysis used in certain cases. The Delaware Department of Justice determined that the forensic examiner who testified in Bass’ case “included statements that exceeded the limits of science.” According to Bass, without this improperly admitted testimony, the State’s remaining evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. As a result, he asserted the State’s use of this unreliable hair evidence violated his right to a fair trial and that he is entitled to a new trial. The Delaware Supreme Court determined that Bass did not meet his burden to establish that the erroneous testimony offered by the forensic examiner in his case, and new evidence, created a strong inference that Bass was actually innocent. The Supreme Court thus concluded the superior court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Bass post-conviction relief. “Thus, this is not the ‘extraordinary case’ where the defendant has met his heavy burden to overcome the procedural bar of Rule 61(d)(2).” View "Bass v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Ronnie Williams was convicted of several sexual offenses committed against two children. On appeal, Williams claimed that during the course of his trial, the Superior Court erroneously denied his requests that the court declare a mistrial when the jury was exposed to evidence that Williams deemed to be highly prejudicial. The evidence that, according to Williams, was so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial falls within two categories: (1) “outbursts” by the victims’ mother and, specifically, her two references to Williams as a “liar;” and (2) references to a friend of the victims—another child who resided with Williams named Cyree, should have been excluded because it might have caused the jury to improperly infer that Williams may have engaged in uncharged sexual misconduct with him. The Delaware Supreme Court's review of the trial record persuaded it to rule that while the victims’ mother’s outbursts may have been inappropriate, they were still unlikely to have misled or prejudiced the jury. "And Williams does not explain how the testimony referring to Cyree was inadmissible, let alone prejudicial." Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed Williams' convictions. View "Wililams v. Delaware" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Raquan Womack on five counts: (1) Possession or Control of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”); (2) Possession or Control of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited (“PABPP”); (3) Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon (“CCDW”); (4) Resisting Arrest; and (5) Possession of Marijuana. Following a three-day jury trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts except the marijuana charge. Womack was sentenced to 20 years at Level 5, suspended after five years with decreasing levels of probation. Before his trial began, Womack moved to suppress the evidence seized during his arrest in light of the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Juliano v. Delaware, 260 A.3d 619 (Del. 2021). The trial court denied Womack’s motion, and Womack appealed. He argued that the Superior Court erred because there was no justification for his detention beyond that of a routine traffic stop and because there was no probable cause for his arrest. Finding that claim lacked merit, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Womack's motion to suppress, and his convictions. View "Womack v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Aaron Thompson was convicted by jury of multiple crimes for his role in the 2013 double murder of Joe and Olga Connell. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. Thompson moved for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The Superior Court denied his motion. The court found that Thompson’s trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate the connection between Thompson and a property near the crime scene at the time of the killings. The court also held that trial and appellate counsel did not have a conflict of interest when he represented the State’s ballistics expert in an unrelated criminal proceeding during Thompson’s direct appeal. Thompson appealed the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief. But finding no error, the Supreme Court again affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. View "Thompson v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Stephen Wheeler Stephen Wheeler was convicted in on four felonies for his role in a violent home invasion. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison. After the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed those convictions, Wheeler returned to the superior court seeking postconviction relief in the form of a new trial. He argued his convictions were the product of an ill-advised waiver of his right to have his case heard and decided by a jury. According to Wheeler, his lawyer counseled him to let a judge, sitting without a jury, determine his guilt or innocence. Wheeler contended that he gave up a vitally important constitutional right because of his lawyer’s constitutionally deficient representation and that his convictions were so tainted by that decision that they could not stand. The superior court denied the motion for relief based primarily on its assessment of the relative credibility of Wheeler and his trial counsel: crediting counsel’s account of the advice he had shared with Wheeler, while discounting Wheeler’s version. The court also found, after hearing from Wheeler and his trial counsel at a postconviction evidentiary hearing, that Wheeler had made an informed strategic decision to proceed with a bench trial. Deferring to these credibility determinations, and finding no other reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Wheeler's motion. View "Wheeler v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Brian Winningham was driving a fully loaded tractor-trailer on Interstate 95 in Delaware when he diverted his attention from the road ahead and failed to notice stopped traffic backed up in the travel lane waiting to exit the highway. Winningham crashed his tractor-trailer at highway speed into three stopped cars and killed two people while injuring two others. After a bench trial, the judge found Winningham guilty of two counts of criminally negligent homicide and other offenses. On appeal, Winningham argued that his criminally negligent homicide convictions should have been overturned because his only driving infraction was a momentary inattention from the roadway. Winningham also argued that the trial court erred because it found only that he failed to perceive a risk of “serious physical injury” instead of a failure to perceive a risk of “death.” The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, finding a rational trier of fact could have found that under the circumstances, Winningham’s inattention was prolonged enough that it was a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe. Further, the trial court’s verdict shows that the court did not misunderstand or misapply the law. Even if it did, the Supreme Court held the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Winningham v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Theopalis Gregory, a former City of Wilmington Council President and Delaware lawyer, was convicted by jury for official misconduct. The charges stemmed from a $40,000 discretionary grant Gregory earmarked for his non-profit organization before leaving office. He personally received at least $15,000 of the grant after he left office. On appeal, Gregory argued the jury instructions were flawed because the trial judge did not define for the jury “official functions,” a necessary element of an official-misconduct conviction. He also argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction because he was not performing official functions when he earmarked funds for his nonprofit. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Gregory’s conviction: Gregory did not object to the jury instructions, and the trial judge did not plainly err when he instructed the jury using the words of the statute. Further, the Court was satisfied that the jury had more than sufficient evidence to find that Gregory was performing official functions when he earmarked the $40,000. View "Gregory v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Derek Hopkins appealed his convictions for Drug Dealing, Disregarding a Police Officer’s Signal, Conspiracy in the Third Degree, Resisting Arrest, Illegal Possession of a Controlled Substance (2 counts), Driving While Suspended or Revoked, Reckless Driving, Failure to Transfer Title and Registration, Unreasonable Speed, and Failure to Stop at a Stop Sign. He was also found “responsible” for possession of marijuana. On appeal, he argued: (1) the superior court abused its discretion by refusing to accept a plea agreement offered by the State and the defense on the morning of trial; (2) the superior court erred as a matter of law by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal as to the charge of Drug Dealing; and (3) the cumulative effect of the errors was to prejudice his substantial rights, requiring the convictions to be vacated. The Delaware Supreme Court found no merit to the defendant’s claims and affirmed his convictions. View "Hopkins v. Delaware" on Justia Law