Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Pro se prisoner Defendant-Appellant Damar Smith appealed his conviction and sentence for Rape in the Third Degree, Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree, and Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited. His notice of appeal was received by the Supreme Court on February 28, 2012, one day after the thirty-day deadline to appeal from his January 27, 2012 sentence. The Court directed Defendant to show cause as to why his appeal should not have been dismissed under Rule 29(b). The Court then directed the State to file a supplemental memorandum addressing whether the Court should re-examine its holding in "Carr v. Delaware" and adopt the Federal "mailbox rule" set forth in "Houston v. Lack." The State took the position that the Court should again decline to adopt the federal prison mailbox rule. Amicus curiae argued that the Court should adopt the rule, in light of changed prison mail procedures and for the policy reasons set forth in "Houston" and subsequent cases. Last year, in "Hickman v. Delaware," the Delaware Supreme Court considered the same issue and declined to adopt the federal prison mailbox rule; it reached the same conclusion in this case. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Defendant's appeal as untimely. View "Smith v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. appealed a Chancery Court judgment granting Defendant Vulcan Materials Company relief on its counterclaims, and an accompanying injunction. The Chancery Court enjoined Martin for a four month period from continuing to prosecute its pending Exchange Offer and Proxy Contest to acquire control of Vulcan. That injunctive relief was granted to remedy Martin's adjudicated violations of two contracts between Martin and Vulcan: a Non-Disclosure Letter Agreement (the "NDA") and a Common Interest, Joint Defense and Confidentiality Agreement (the "JDA"). Finding that the Chancery Court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the equities favored Vulcan, the Supreme Court affirmed that court's decision. View "Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Co." on Justia Law

Three officers completed a traffic stop, making "ancillary, permissible inquiries." A probation officer continued to question one of the car's passengers, a probationer, even though the officer testified he had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Officers testified that the car was leaving a "drug area." And drugs were found in the car following the stop. The passenger-probationer was on probation for drug charges. He was ultimately arrested following that stop, and he challenged his arrest on the grounds that officers lacked probable cause to make the arrest. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: "[a]n officer who pulls a car over for speeding does not thereby gain free rein to ask as many questions, for as long a time, as he might wish. Further investigation requires further justification. . . . [the Defendant's] continued detention constituted an impermissible seizure, and the questioning itself violated even the limited rights possessed by a probationer." View "Murray v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Vanessa Wright appealed a Family Court decision that awarded alimony to Respondent-Appellee David Wright as a result of divorce proceedings. On appeal, Wife contended that: (1) the Family Court abused its discretion and violated her rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 1 of the Delaware Constitution by reducing her tithing when calculating her monthly expenses; and (2) the Family Court erred in its analysis under title 13, section 1512(c) of the Delaware Code by reducing the Husband's earning capacity calculation, and thus requiring the Wife to pay more in alimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that both of the Wife's arguments were without merit. View "Wright v. Wright" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Stephanie Smith appealed a Superior Court's award of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Delaware State University ("DSU") on her claims of wrongful termination under the Delaware Whistleblowers' Protection Act, of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and of common law defamation. Plaintiff raised three arguments on appeal: (1) that the Superior Court erred in finding that Plaintiff failed to present evidence that she was constructively discharged from DSU, sufficient to support a claim under the Act; (2) that the Superior Court erred in failing to consider whether a threat to worsen her working environment could give rise to a claim under the Act; (3) that the Superior Court erred by granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's defamation claim based on her failure to produce any evidence of damages. Upon review, the Supreme Court recognized that a constructive discharge could give rise to a Whistleblower Act claim, but concluded that the Superior Court properly granted summary judgment based on the facts alleged in this case. Because Plaintiff's defamation claim was governed by New York law, it was barred by New York's one-year statute of limitations. Thus, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DSU. View "Smith v. Delaware State University" on Justia Law

Defendant Bruce Rowan appealed his conviction on 56 counts of breach of condition of release. Defendant was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child, and five counts of fourth degree rape, but he did not challenge those convictions. With respect to the breach of condition convictions, Defendant argued that the Superior Court erred in: 1) denying his motion to dismiss; 2) admitting into evidence tape recordings of his telephone calls from prison to the victim; and 3) admitting into evidence certain bond paperwork from the Justice of the Peace Court. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found find no merit to these arguments, and affirmed Defendant's convictions. View "Rowan v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Appellant was carrying a concealed knife in his home when he was arrested. At issue was whether a person could be convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in his home. Under the Delaware Constitution, Delaware citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves, their families, and their homes. Appellant claimed that when the police asked about his knife, he told them it was hidden in his pants. If a jury were to accept appellant's version of the events surrounding his arrest, he would not be subject to prosecution for carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Because the jury was not properly instructed, the court remanded for a new trial on that charge alone. View "Griffin v. State" on Justia Law

The court reviewed the Superior Court's denial of a motion to suppress stemming from a traffic stop. Because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, the court reversed the trial judge's denial of the motion to suppress drugs discovered in defendant's bag. Defendant's continued detention constituted an impermissible seizure, and the questioning itself violated even the limited rights possessed by a probationer. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Murray v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty on four charges related to the sexual assault of two minors. At issue was the use of out-of-court statements in criminal prosecutions. The court found that, in this case, the inadmissible comments were made in court, when the interviewer explained the protocol used for interviewing children about sexual abuse. The interviewer offered her opinion that the protocol made it "very obvious when [children] are being truthful." Therefore, that was impermissible vouching and required reversal. View "Richardson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction of Carjacking in the Second Degree. On appeal, defendant argued that the Superior Court "relieved the State of its burden to establish every element of an indicted charge beyond [a] reasonable doubt when it erroneously interpreted...the [statutory] language of [Title 11, section 836(a) of the Delaware Code.]" The court concluded that defendant's argument was without merit where the statute was properly construed and affirmed the judgment. View "Dennis v. State" on Justia Law