Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Patrick Monceaux appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss charges against him under Section 777A of the Delaware Code. He contended that the statute violated his right to due process under the United States and the Delaware Constitutions because placing his status as a sex offender directly in issue lessened the State's burden of proof and the presumption of innocence. He also contended that the trial judge erred by failing to address this constitutional argument when denying his motion to dismiss. Instead, the trial judge bifurcated the trial into two phases. In the first phase, the elements of the Unlawful Sexual Contact Second Degree charge were tried before a jury with no evidence of Monceaux's status as a sex offender. With the consent of Monceaux, the second phase of the trial, limited to determining his status as a registered sex offender, was tried before the trial judge. The bifurcation procedure used by the trial judge in this case prevented the jury from hearing evidence of Monceaux's sex offender status before determining his guilt for purposes of Section 777A. For that reason, the Supreme Court found no merit to Monceaux's constitutional claim. Furthermore, the Court held that the Superior Court must use a bifurcation procedure in all future Section 777A cases, to avoid the potential constitutional issues raised here. Finally, because the alternate relief requested in Monceaux's motion to dismiss was bifurcation, which the trial judge granted, Monceaux's second claim on appeal lacked merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Monceaux v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant Malik Brown appealed his conviction on Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine, Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping Cocaine, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He brought three arguments on appeal: the trial judge (1) unfairly supplemented the jury instruction to include not only selling but also giving in the definition of delivery; (2) abused his discretion by admonishing his counsel in front of the jury; and (3) erroneously prohibited defense counsel from reading the dictionary definition of “substantial” during closing argument. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Brown v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant Vicenzo DiDomenicis was convicted for driving under the influence (DUI). The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the prosecutor's misconduct deprived Defendant of a fair trial. The prosecutor’s opening statement admonished the jury about the dangers of drunk driving, and the need to protect everyone on the road. In addition, the prosecutor pointed out that people who are arrested for DUI may have been arrested seven times before. The State conceded that the prosecutor’s opening statement was improper, but argued that his comments did not amount to plain error. The Supreme Court was "troubled that, after years of decisions addressing improper prosecutor statements to the jury, the State made such a basic error." Nonetheless, the Court concluded that the prosecutor’s comments did not warrant reversal in this case. View "DiDomenicis v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Virginia Edmisten appealed a superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. Plaintiff sued Greyhound alleging that her husband (now deceased) was exposed to asbestos contained in Greyhound products. She argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the superior court erred by impeaching the credibility of witnesses in order to grant summary judgment. Upon review of the trial record, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed. View "Edmisten v. Greyhound Lines, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Derrick Powell appealed his death sentence directly to the Supreme Court. Defendant was convicted for the murder of Georgetown Police Officer Chad Spicer. On appeal, Defendant argued that there were legal flaws in the police investigation of the homicide and in the jury trial that fatally tainted his conviction, and that his death sentence was both unconstitutional and disproportionate to sentences handed down in similar cases. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Defendant's claims lacked merit and affirmed his sentence. View "Powell v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant Kevin Dickens made a direct appeal to the Supreme Court following his conviction of two counts of assault in a detention facility and acquittal of one count of assault in a detention facility. Upon motion by the State, the Superior Court declared Defendant to be a habitual offender and sentenced him to a total period of sixteen years at Level V incarceration to be followed by a sex month term of probation. Defendant raised nine issues on appeal; upon review of each, the Supreme Court found error in the superior court's calculation of Defendant's sentence. The Court affirmed the superior court in all other respects, and remanded the case for resentencing. View "Dickens v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Owner of Pulse Construction Defendant-Appellant Gerry J. Mott appealed appealed a Superior Court judgment which him guilty of one count of Construction Fraud. the Superior Court sentenced him to probation and ordered restitution in the amount of $68,576.89. During the restitution hearing, the trial judge refused to hear testimony regarding a loan of $20,000 Mott claimed he made to the complainants for windows and doors that Mott installed in their home. On appeal, Mott claimed that the sentencing judge improperly interpreted the statutory formula for calculating the amount of loss to a victimized home buyer. He also contended that the trial judge improperly refused to allow testimony at Mott’s restitution hearing regarding the "set off" for the $20,000 given to the home buyers for windows and doors. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment because Mott failed to bring a counterclaim in an earlier mechanics lien suit implicating the $20,000 alleged debt and Super. Ct. Civ. R. 13(a) barred him from doing so. View "Mott v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant, Darren Arnold appealed a Family Court judgment that denied his petition for expungement of his entire juvenile record. Defendant's petition followed a gubernatorial pardon of his adult conviction for Misdemeanor Terroristic Threatening. Defendant contended that the Family Court erred as a matter of law by failing to give effect to title 10, section 1013 of the Delaware Code, which provides for automatic expungement of an individual's juvenile record after that individual receives a gubernatorial pardon. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Defendant's statutory argument was correct, and that the Family Court's order must be reversed. View "Arnold v. Delaware" on Justia Law

In this appeal the issue before the Supreme Court concerned whether the affidavit filed in support of a search warrant supported a magistrate's finding of probable cause. The affidavit described a confidential source as "past proven and reliable" without explaining the basis for that statement. In addition, the affidavit described the activities of a "drug detection K-9," but it did not state that the dog was trained and certified. Notwithstanding these omissions, the totality of the circumstances supported the magistrate's decision authorizing the search warrant. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Arcuri v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Elizabeth, Edmond, John and James Plummer appealed a Superior Court order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee R.T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc. Vanderbilt moved to dismiss the Plummers' appeal as untimely. Vanderbilt took the position that the Superior Court's June 28, 2011 dismissal order was the final order in the matter below. Thus, Vanderbilt contended, the Plummers' notice of appeal filed on September 6, 2011 was untimely under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(i). Vanderbilt argued in the alternative that if the June 28 Order was not the final order, the appeal is interlocutory and any appeal must await entry of a final order. The Plummers contended that their appeal was timely and not interlocutory because a Special Master's August 9, 2011 order dismissing nine defendants and not the June 28 Order, constituted the final order. The Plummers contended that under accepted Superior Court practice, the June 28 Order was not understood to be final. After its review of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that the June 28 Order was the only final order in this case and that no court error contributed to the Plummers' delayed filing of this appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Plummers' appeal as untimely under Supreme Court Rule 29(b). View "Plummer v. R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc." on Justia Law