Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was convicted of three counts of issuing a bad check greater than $1,000. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial judge erred by failing to grant a motion for a new trial after discovering that Juror No. 8 was a victim in a pending criminal case and by failing to conduct a sufficient post trial inquiry. The court held that when a juror serving on a criminal trial was an alleged victim of a crime and was contemporaneously represented by the Attorney General's office in the prosecution of the alleged perpetrator of the crime against the juror "victim," a mere inquiry by deposition into whether the jury knew the prosecutor or anyone in his office insufficiently probed the ability of that "juror/victim" to render a fair and objective verdict as a matter of law. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded. View "Knox v. State" on Justia Law

A jury found that defendant and a co-defendant had crashed through patio doors of the Warren family, shot and killed Kenneth Warren in front of his wife and their nineteen-month-old-son. For that crime, defendant was sentenced to death. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial judge erred in admitting the out-of-court statements of his co-defendant; defense counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate DNA issues; certain evidence demonstrated that defendant was innocent, or alternatively, that a new trial was required; defense counsel was ineffective in failing to rehabilitate prospective jurors or to object to the trial judge's dismissal of them; his death sentence was unconstitutional; and defense counsel was ineffective in failing to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation and to present that mitigation evidence to the trial judge and jury. The court held that defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief or a new trial where defendant's first claim was procedurally barred; defendant's second claim failed because he had not shown prejudice; defendant's third claim failed for the same reason; defendant's fourth claim failed because he had not shown that defense counsel's performance was deficient; defendant's fifth claim was procedurally barred; and defendant's sixth claim failed because he had not shown prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Swan v. State" on Justia Law