Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Alvin Hines was indicted by grand jury on: (1) Possession of a Weapon with a Removed, Obliterated or Altered Serial Number (the “Serial Number Charge”), (2) Possession of a Firearm While Under the Influence (the “Drug Charge”), and (3) Discharging a Firearm on a Street. Following a two-day jury trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on the first two counts. Hines was sentenced to three years at Level 5, suspended for one year at Level 2 for the Serial Number Charge and to one year at Level 5, suspended for one year at Level 2 for the Drug Charge. During his trial, Hines moved for judgment of acquittal on the Serial Number Charge following the State’s case-in-chief. The trial court denied Hines’ motion. Hines argued the superior court erred in denying his motion because the evidence was insufficient to show that he knew that the firearm at issue had an obliterated serial number. To this, the Delaware Supreme Court found the argument lacked merit: at least two police officers testified that someone holding that firearm would know its serial number had been removed. Therefore, the Court found sufficient evidence existed for the jury to infer that Hines knew about the obliterated serial number, and affirmed the superior court denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. View "Hines v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Timothy McCrary appealed his convictions on four counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree. At the time of the commission of the offenses, defendant was an aide at Harrington Head Start Preschool (“Head Start”). The four convictions involved three of the preschool students. He raised three claims: (1) the trial court erred in admitting two, prior, out-of-court statements of one of the victims under 13 Del. C. § 3513 thereby denying him his right to confront the witnesses against him in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting another victim’s prior, out- of-court statement under 11 Del. C. § 3507 because the State failed to lay a proper foundation for the statement’s admission; and (3) the prejudicial effect of the errors deprived him of a fair trial. Finding no reversible error, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "McCrary v. Delaware" on Justia Law

At a political rally for a Delaware U.S. Senate candidate, video and photographic evidence captured defendant-appellant Michael Hastings unholstering his handgun and pointing the weapon, ready-to-fire, at protesters across the street from the rally. He also left the handgun unattended on the ground. The State charged Hastings with one count of Reckless Endangering in the First Degree and one count of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. A jury convicted Hastings of both counts. The judge sentenced Hastings to four years at Level V incarceration followed by decreasing levels of supervision. Hastings argued: (1) the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on what a “substantial risk” of death is; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a reckless endangering conviction; and (3) the cumulative effect of these errors required both convictions to be vacated. Finding no reversible error, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Hastings' convictions. View "Hastings v. Delaware" on Justia Law

A probation officer seized two guns—one a loaded 9mm Ruger, the other a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson—from a backpack recently carried by defendant Devin Coleman, a convicted felon and a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. The officer also seized two .40 caliber magazines—one from within the Smith & Wesson, the other loose in the backpack. It was later determined that one of the magazines bore the defendant’s fingerprint but no one knew whether the incriminating prints were on the magazine that was in the Smith & Wesson firearm or on the loose magazine. The defendant asked the trial court to instruct the jury that the officer’s failure to note, at the time of the seizure, which of the two magazines was in the weapon constitutes “missing evidence.” The trial court would not give the requested instruction and this refusal, defendant argued, constituted a due process violation warranting the reversal of his conviction for possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. The Delaware Supreme Court rejected defendant's argument, finding the evidence he claimed was "missing" at his trial was of dubious exculpatory value. "And to the extent it had any such value, Coleman has not explained how that would have been apparent to the probation officer upon his seizure of Coleman’s backpack and his discovery of the weapons and magazines in it." View "Coleman v. Delaware" on Justia Law

In 2022, Delaware Governor John Carney, Jr. signed into law two pieces of legislation affecting how Delaware citizens register to vote and cast their ballots. Under one bill, the "Same-Day Registration Statute," the deadline for registering to vote in any presidential primary, primary, special, and general election was changed from the fourth Saturday before the date of the election to the day of the election. Under the other bill, the General Assembly enacted and the Governor approved the addition of a chapter entitled “Voting by mail ballot” to Title 15 of the Delaware Code, which contained the statutes governing elections in Delaware. The "Vote-by-Mail Statute," applied to non-presidential primary, special, and general elections, and authorized all Delaware voters to cast their ballots by mail whether or not they were able to appear at a polling place. On the very day the Governor approved the bills, two lawsuits were filed challenging the constitutionality of both enactments under various sections of Article V of the Delaware Constitution. The Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief in the Court of Chancery, contending that the Same-Day Registration Statute conflicted with Section 4, while the Vote-by-Mail Statute ran afoul of Section 4A. The Delaware Supreme Court entered an order announcing its unanimous conclusion that neither of the newly enacted laws passed muster under the Delaware Constitution. Because of the press of time, the Court was unable then to publish a full opinion explaining the reasons underpinning that conclusion; this opinion explained the Court's reasoning. View "Albence v. Higgin" on Justia Law

In 2021, appellant Javon Pollard was convicted of numerous drug-related charges. Pollard appealed, arguing that the Superior Court committed plain error by not sua sponte suppressing evidence obtained during an allegedly illegal search of his vehicle in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution. To the Delaware Supreme Court, the State urged the Supreme Court not to consider Pollard’s appeal because he failed to properly raise this argument below. The State further argued that Pollard’s challenges also failed because there was sufficient probable cause to justify the search. The Supreme Court agreed Pollard did not fairly raise the argument below. Regardless, Pollard also lost on the merits because the search did not violate either the United States or Delaware Constitutions. View "Pollard v. Delaware" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Delaware Supreme Court's review centered on whether the First Amendment barred claims for defamation and tortious interference with contract against a defendant who, in an email to a law firm, described as “shockingly racist” a lawsuit filed by one of the firm’s partners in his personal capacity. The suit aimed to preserve a nearby high school’s “Indian” mascot. The partner, who claimed to have lost his position with the law firm because of the email, sued his detractor, contending that the characterization of his lawsuit was demonstrably false and pled four causes of action, including defamation and tortious interference with contract. The partner’s detractor, in response, contended her statements about the partner were opinions protected by the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The Superior Court agreed with the detractor and dismissed the partner’s tort action. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court: the statements at issue did not on their face contain demonstrably false statements of fact, nor did they imply defamatory and provably false facts. "As statements concerning an issue of public concern, moreover, they are entitled to heightened First Amendment protection and cannot form the predicate of the plaintiff’s tort claims." View "Cousins v. Goodier" on Justia Law

Appellant DeJoynay Ferguson pled guilty to one count of Murder by Abuse or Neglect in the First Degree, six counts of Child Abuse in the First Degree, and two counts of Child Abuse in the Second Degree. The plea was made pursuant to a plea agreement under which the State entered a nolle prosequi as to other remaining charges. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of life in prison. He also sentenced her to ten years at Level V on each of the Child Abuse in the First Degree charges, suspended after two years on each. He sentenced her to probation on the two counts of Child Abuse in the Second Degree. Ferguson appealed her sentences, contending the sentencing judge sentenced her for the sole purpose of retribution; that he sentenced her with a closed mind; that he was unwilling to consider the mitigation evidence and arguments she presented; and that her sentence violated her right to due process. Finding no reversible error, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court. View "Ferguson v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Under New Castle County, Delaware's Unified Development Code, heavy industrial uses were permitted as of right on land zoned for heavy industry or HI. On August 27, 2019, New Castle County Council adopted Ordinance 19-046 amending the Code, then stating that property owners with HI-zoned property had to obtain a special use permit from the County before expanding Heavy Industry use of their property. Croda, Inc. filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery to enjoin enforcement of Ordinance 19-046, claiming, among other things, that Ordinance 19-046 was invalid because the Ordinance title did not put Croda and the public on notice of the substance of the zoning amendment in violation of state and county law and federal due process guarantees. The Court of Chancery dismissed Croda’s state law claims as untimely under the state sixty-day statute of repose and rejected its constitutional claims because Croda did not have a vested right in a zoning category. On appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, Croda claimed the Court of Chancery erred because the alleged lack of proper notice tolled the statute of repose, and it did not have to show a vested right to state a procedural due process claim. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s judgment: the statute of repose was not subject to tolling. "And while our reasoning is different than that of the Court of Chancery, Croda’s procedural due process claim fails because those protections do not apply to the County’s legislative acts adopting the Ordinance." View "Croda Inc. v. New Castle County" on Justia Law

Appellant Wilbur Medley, appealed a superior court's denial of his motion for sentence modification. Medley was convicted after pleading guilty to second degree burglary pursuant to an agreement. In challenging his sentence, Medley argued: (1) the superior court improperly delegated its sentencing authority because DOC staff and court administrative staff amended his original sentence order to strip him of 563 days of credit time; and (2) the sentencing judge denied his right to be present with counsel for sentencing when the judge, sua sponte and without a hearing, issued the amended sentence. After review, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected Medley’s contentions and affirmed the denial of sentence modification. View "Medley v. Delaware" on Justia Law