Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of attempted robbery in the first degree and sentenced to 25 years at level V. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the following: (1) the trial judge erroneously denied him a missing evidence instruction; (2) an officer's out of court identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive and unreliable; (3) the trial judge abused his discretion by asking the prospective jury panel two voir dire questions pertaining to mental illnesses and illicit drug use; (4) the manner in which the trial judge conducted his colloquy violated defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial; (5) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction; (6) the trial judge erred by not, sua sponte, expounding upon the wording of the statue or providing a single-theory unanimity instruction; (7) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct; (8) defendant's conviction and sentencing for both attempted carjacking and attempted robbery first degree constituted prohibited cumulative punishment in violation of constitutional protections against double jeopardy; and (9) the trial judge made an erroneous finding of fact by concluding that defendant had rejected the State's modified plea agreement. The court found that the issues defendant raised had no merit and therefore affirmed the judgment. View "Weber v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a Family Court sentencing order initially entered when he was a juvenile where he robbed a woman with a BB gun. Defendant contended that the Family Court did not have the authority to sentence him, at the outset, to twelve months of adult probation following his juvenile commitment. Because the statute the Family Court relied upon affirmatively provided only two circumstances, not present in this case, where the Family Court could sentence a juvenile to adult probation, the court found that the General Assembly intended to limit the authority of the Family Court to impose adult consequences on the juvenile. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for a correction of the sentence order. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted murder in the first degree, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, and possession of ammunition by a person prohibited. On appeal, defendant argued that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the Superior Court admitted into evidence hearsay statements by persons who did not testify at the trial. The court concluded that the erroneous admission of the testimonial hearsay evidence was harmless and therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court must be affirmed. View "Wheeler v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Roger Johnson was convicted of two counts of robbery in the first degree and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and one count of conspiracy in the second degree. Johnson filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging, in pertinent part, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, 274 (a 274 jury instruction). The superior court denied Johnson's petition in 2007. Johnson subsequently filed a second petition for postconviction relief, again arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a 274 jury instruction and citing the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Allen v. State. The superior court denied Johnson's motion as procedrually barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court properly denied Johnson's second postconviction motion as procedurally barred, and (2) the issue of the 274 jury instruction did not warrant exceptional consideration. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his convictions for unlawful sexual contact in the first degree, a lesser-included offense of rape in the first degree. Defendant contended that his conviction should be reversed because the prosecutor improperly prodded the victim to cry in front of the jury. The court concluded that the record evidence did not support that contention. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. On a motion for postconviction relief, defendant raised four arguments. The court found that the unpresented mitigation evidence would not alter the totality of the evidence sufficiently to change the outcome of the penalty hearing; the trial judge properly found no prosecutorial misconduct; the trial judge did not err by eliminating "conscience of the community" and "great weight" from the jury instructions; and Delaware's sentencing procedure did not violate Ring v. Arizona. Accordingly, none of defendant's claims had merit and the court affirmed the postconviction judge's denial of defendant's motion for postconviction relief. View "Norcross v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Tier I sex offender, was arrested for violating 11 Del. C. 4120(f) by failing to register his wife's Bridgeville address. At issue was whether the term "residence" should be defined for purposes of a sex offender registration statute, and whether there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for violating the statute. The court held that the term "residence" should be given its commonly accepted dictionary definition - a place where one actually and habitually lived, as opposed to a place where one stays temporarily. The trial court decided that "residence" meant a permanent or temporary place of abode, and instructed the jury accordingly. Using the dictionary definition, the court concluded that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant had changed his residence where defendant went "back and forth" between his wife's house in Bridgeville and his parents' house in Georgetown. View "Andrews v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of Conspiracy to Commit First-Degree Murder, but acquitted of First-Degree Murder and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. Defendant appealed from the Conspiracy conviction, claiming that the Superior Court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the evidence was legally insufficient. The court held that a rational juror could infer from the evidence that defendant wanted a co-conspirator to retaliate, that he knew the co-conspirator intended to use a deadly weapon to accomplish that retaliation, and that the shooter (whether defendant or the co-conspirator) carried out the plan exactly as intended. Given those reasonable inferences from the evidence introduced at trial, a rational juror could have also concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant conspired to commit First-Degree Murder. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Lemons v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his convictions for Reckless Burning, Burglary in the Third Degree, two counts of Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree, and three counts of Arson in the Second Degree. At issue was the trial judge's decision allowing a latent fingerprint examiner, who had also been trained in tire track and shoeprint analyses, to testify as an expert that boot and tire tracks at arson scenes were consistent with defendant's boot and tire on his mountain bike. The trial judge found the examiner to be qualified by his knowledge, skill, training, experience or education under Rule 702 of the Delaware Rules of Evidence. The court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment. View "Rodriguez v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of First Degree Murder, sentenced to death, and subsequently appealed from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Rule 61. On appeal, defendant raised eight claims of error. The eighth claim was that the trial court erred by refusing to grant defendant's motion to issue a material witness warrant. The court held that because many of defendant's claims were procedurally barred and the balance lacked substantive merit, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Taylor v. State" on Justia Law