Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A man was charged with several felony offenses arising from the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl. The State’s case relied on the child’s testimony, physical evidence including DNA, and proof that the child was below the age of consent. DNA testing revealed male DNA on multiple parts of the child’s body; some matched the defendant, but DNA found in the child’s vaginal vestibule was inconclusive—it could not include or exclude the defendant. Importantly, spermatozoa found on the child’s underwear was conclusively not the defendant’s. The defense sought to admit this evidence to suggest another individual could have been the source of the male DNA, but the trial court excluded it.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware conducted a jury trial on most charges and a bench trial on one. The court admitted a redacted DNA report, omitting the evidence of another male’s DNA on the underwear. The jury convicted the defendant of all charges, unanimously finding that he engaged in vaginal intercourse with the child. The bench trial also resulted in conviction on the remaining charge. The defendant was sentenced to a lengthy prison term and appealed, arguing that exclusion of the DNA evidence deprived him of a fair trial on the most serious charges.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to appreciate the high probative value of the excluded DNA evidence, which was directly relevant to whether the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the child. The Court found that the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh this probative value and that the Rape Shield Statute did not bar the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions on charges that depended on proof of sexual intercourse and remanded for further proceedings. Convictions not dependent on that element were left undisturbed. View "Baldwin vs. State" on Justia Law

An eight-year-old child, N.R., alleged that her father, Gerald Roberson, had sexually abused her over several years, with the most recent incident occurring two months before she was taken by her mother to a hospital for a sexual assault examination. While the examination found no physical evidence of abuse, N.R. gave a detailed statement about repeated abuse and indicated that Roberson threatened her to keep her silent. Roberson was charged with multiple serious offenses relating to sexual abuse of a child.The State moved before trial to allow N.R. to testify remotely using closed-circuit television (CCTV), citing a Delaware statute permitting such testimony for children under certain conditions. After a hearing that included expert testimony from N.R.’s counselor about the child’s fear and likely inability to communicate in her father’s presence, the Superior Court found that remote testimony was warranted and that the statute permitting it did not violate the Delaware Constitution. The court also denied Roberson’s request for a limiting instruction after the prosecutor, during closing arguments, asked the jury to consider why a child would endure the ordeal of reporting and testifying if her claims were untrue. The jury convicted Roberson on all counts, and he was sentenced to 125 years in prison.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed whether the statutory procedure allowing child witnesses to testify by CCTV violated the state constitutional right to confront witnesses “face to face,” and whether the prosecutor’s closing argument constituted impermissible vouching for the witness’s credibility. The Court held that the statute does not violate the Delaware Constitution, relying on precedent that interprets the confrontation right to allow such procedures in the interest of protecting child victims while preserving the defendant’s right to cross-examination. The Court also found that the prosecutor’s comments did not amount to misconduct. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Roberson v. State" on Justia Law

The case concerned Jeffrin Cabrera, who was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree rape, two counts of first-degree burglary, one count of attempted first-degree rape, and one count of terroristic threatening. The events leading to these charges involved Cabrera’s repeated threats and coercion against Flor Munoz Coto, with whom he had previously been in a relationship. Cabrera followed, threatened, and extorted Munoz for money, and ultimately sexually assaulted her multiple times between August 20 and August 23, 2023. Forensic evidence, including DNA analysis, corroborated Munoz’s testimony about the assaults.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware presided over Cabrera’s trial. During jury selection, the court did not question prospective jurors about potential bias against individuals with limited English proficiency. The court later instructed the jury that such bias was impermissible. Cabrera did not testify. The jury convicted him on all counts, and the court sentenced him to 72 years in prison. Cabrera appealed, raising two issues for the first time: the adequacy of the jury instruction about the mens rea required for kidnapping (a predicate felony for two of the rape counts), and the absence of voir dire regarding juror bias against non-English speakers.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case under the plain error standard, since neither issue had been raised below. The court found that, although the kidnapping instruction omitted the statutory definition of “intentionally,” it did not constitute plain error, given the evidence and context. The court further held that the failure to conduct voir dire regarding language bias was not plain error, especially in light of the jury instructions given and the absence of a request by defense counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed Cabrera’s convictions. View "Cabrera v. State" on Justia Law

In 1993, Joseph Cornette was involved in a drunk driving incident that resulted in a serious car accident and injury to another driver. He pleaded guilty to Assault Second Degree and Driving Under the Influence (DUI), with other charges being dismissed as part of a plea agreement. After serving his sentence and remaining crime-free for decades, Cornette received an unconditional pardon for his assault conviction from the Governor of Delaware. He then petitioned for discretionary expungement of the pardoned assault conviction, without seeking expungement for the DUI conviction.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware denied Cornette’s petition. Initially, a court commissioner found that DUI offenses are not eligible for expungement and denied relief. On appeal, a Superior Court judge denied Cornette’s petition on the grounds that Delaware law requires all charges in a case to be eligible for expungement before any charge in that case may be expunged. The court reasoned that because Cornette’s DUI conviction was not eligible for expungement, the pardoned assault conviction could not be expunged either. A motion for reargument was also denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case and reversed the judgment of the Superior Court. The Supreme Court held that under 11 Del. C. § 4375, an individual with a pardoned conviction may seek discretionary expungement of that specific conviction, even if other charges in the case are not eligible for expungement. The Court concluded that the statute permits partial expungement and does not require all charges in a case to be eligible. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Cornette v. State" on Justia Law

Two masked men entered a restaurant in Sussex County, Delaware, where one stole jewelry from a patron and the other fatally shot two individuals. The State alleged that Yony Morales-Garcia was the shooter, acting to protect his brother, Emner Morales-Garcia, who confessed to the robbery. The brothers were indicted on multiple charges and scheduled for separate trials. Emner accepted a plea deal, pleading guilty to first-degree robbery and second-degree conspiracy. Yony’s first trial ended in a hung jury, but in a second trial, he was convicted on all counts, including two for first-degree murder.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware presided over both trials, ultimately entering convictions against Yony following the second trial. At trial, the prosecution referenced Emner’s guilty plea both during opening statements and through a detective’s testimony, even though Emner was not called by the State as a witness in its case-in-chief. Yony’s defense objected on appeal, arguing that these references amounted to prosecutorial misconduct and, alternatively, that the court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the limited relevance of Emner’s plea.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware found that the State’s repeated references to Emner’s guilty plea constituted prosecutorial misconduct, violating the principles articulated in Allen v. State regarding the improper use of a co-defendant’s guilty plea as substantive evidence. The Court held that this misconduct was plain error, prejudiced the fairness of the trial, and created a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent the error. The Supreme Court of Delaware reversed Yony’s convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Morales-Garcia v. State" on Justia Law

Four individuals, including Ronald Suber, were engaged in stealing catalytic converters from vehicles. During one theft, police were alerted and pursued the suspects. Anna Hurst was apprehended and confessed, while Suber and others escaped. Soon after, Suber expressed anger over Hurst’s arrest. Suber and another accomplice, Tori Balfour, met Hurst and Brian May at a convenience store. Surveillance footage confirmed their meeting, and Balfour testified that Suber accused Hurst and May of talking to police. Later, in a cornfield, Balfour claimed Suber shot Hurst and fired at May. Suber allegedly disposed of evidence and returned to his cousin’s house. May, wounded, sought help from a local resident, and Hurst’s body was found in the cornfield. DNA and ballistic evidence were collected, but the murder weapon was not recovered.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware held a jury trial where Balfour testified against Suber after receiving a plea deal. May did not appear for trial. The prosecution elicited testimony from detectives suggesting that May identified Suber as the shooter in a photo lineup, although May was unavailable for cross-examination. The defense did not object to this testimony. The jury found Suber guilty of first-degree murder and related charges, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment plus additional time.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed Suber's appeal, focusing on the use of indirect hearsay evidence that implicated Suber as the shooter through May’s supposed identification without direct testimony. The State conceded that this violated Suber’s constitutional confrontation rights. Applying the plain error standard, the Supreme Court determined the error was prejudicial to Suber’s substantial rights and undermined the fairness of the trial, given the central role of the indirect hearsay in corroborating the accomplice’s testimony. The Supreme Court vacated Suber’s convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Suber v. State" on Justia Law

In June 2023, Kenneth Swanson was subject to multiple outstanding arrest warrants and was suspected by police of selling crack cocaine in Wilmington, Delaware. Acting on a tip from a confidential informant, police surveilled Swanson and observed what appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction. After stopping Swanson’s vehicle at a gas station, officers arrested him and conducted a search, which resulted in the discovery of a plastic bag containing cocaine hidden in his pants. Laboratory analysis confirmed the substance was cocaine.Swanson was indicted by a grand jury in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware on several charges, but ultimately tried only for possession of cocaine in a Tier 3 quantity. He waived his right to a jury trial, and the bench trial proceeded with the State presenting video and testimony from the arresting officers. Swanson did not file any pretrial motions to suppress the evidence nor object to its admission during trial. The court found him guilty of the possession charge and, after declaring him a habitual offender, sentenced him to ten years of incarceration, suspended after six years.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, Swanson argued for the first time that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the evidence should have been suppressed. The Supreme Court of Delaware held that under Superior Court Criminal Rule 12, motions to suppress must be made prior to trial and failure to do so constitutes waiver, absent good cause. Because Swanson did not file a suppression motion or show cause for his failure, the Court declined to review his Fourth Amendment claim and affirmed his conviction. The Court clarified that plain-error review does not apply to unpreserved suppression issues except in limited circumstances, such as when the basis for suppression arises too late or is confined to the four corners of a warrant. View "Swanson v. State" on Justia Law

Law enforcement received anonymous tips in 2021 and 2022 alleging that a Wilmington resident was selling drugs and possessing firearms at his home, which also operated as an unlicensed barbershop. The tips included specific details about the individual’s activities and identifying information. After receiving the July 2022 tip, police corroborated aspects of the information through surveillance, database checks, and two traffic stops involving individuals seen leaving the residence—one was found with marijuana allegedly purchased from the suspect and another fled from police after acting suspiciously. Based on this investigation, police obtained and executed a search warrant, recovering drugs, cash, and a firearm. The individual, a previously convicted felon, was indicted on drug and firearm charges, including possession of a firearm by a person prohibited.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the affidavit supporting the search warrant established probable cause through the combination of the July 2022 tip and corroborating police investigation. At trial, a police officer referred to information from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) identifying the recovered firearm as stolen. The defense did not object to this testimony. The defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, including firearm and drug charges, and sentenced to seventeen years of incarceration.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, the defendant raised claims of hearsay and Confrontation Clause violations due to the NCIC testimony, challenged the denial of his suppression motion, and argued that the statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court applied plain error review to most issues because they were not raised below, and affirmed the convictions. The Court held that there was no plain error in admitting the NCIC evidence, that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and that the firearm prohibition statute was not plainly unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied to the defendant. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Johns v. State" on Justia Law

Police in Wilmington, Delaware, were monitoring social media when a detective saw a video on Instagram that appeared to show Marvin Swanson, a person legally prohibited from possessing firearms, mimicking shooting motions and possibly displaying what looked like a gun magazine in his waistband. Shortly after, a confidential informant, known to be reliable, sent the detective the same video and claimed to have personally observed Swanson in the area with a firearm. The police responded to the location, saw Swanson in the described clothing, conducted a pat down that did not reveal a weapon, but found a loaded handgun in a recycling bin about 25–30 feet away. Swanson was handcuffed and transported to the police station, where he voluntarily provided a DNA sample. DNA testing later matched Swanson to the gun, leading to his arrest for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person prohibited.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware denied Swanson’s motion to suppress the DNA evidence, finding that officers had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and that the continued detention and transport to the station were reasonable, necessary, and related to the investigation. A jury later convicted Swanson.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware found that while the officers had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop based on the informant’s tip and corroborating observations, the subsequent transport of Swanson to the police station amounted to a de facto arrest. The Court held that this arrest was not supported by probable cause because the evidence linking Swanson to the gun was insufficient at the time of the arrest. As a result, the Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court, holding that the motion to suppress should have been granted. View "Swanson v. State" on Justia Law

The appellant was charged with several serious offenses after allegedly shooting a neighbor during a dispute at their apartment complex. The evidence included eyewitness testimony, gunshot residue on the appellant’s hands, and ammunition found in the appellant’s apartment matching shell casings at the scene. The appellant ultimately entered a no-contest plea to reduced charges, but later sought to withdraw the plea, claiming that his attorney’s actions led him to enter the agreement involuntarily and without full understanding of the case against him.After the appellant attempted to file a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, his defense counsel followed guidance from a prior decision (Reed v. State) by moving to withdraw as counsel and requesting substitute counsel. The Superior Court of the State of Delaware held a hearing, but did not first address the motion to withdraw as counsel. Instead, the court required the appellant to advocate for his own plea withdrawal and ultimately granted the motion to withdraw the plea, finding it had not been entered voluntarily. However, the court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and required the same attorney to represent the appellant at trial, where he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware held that when defense counsel moves to withdraw after a defendant expresses a desire to withdraw a plea, the trial court must first address and resolve the motion to withdraw as counsel, applying the established “good cause” standard. The failure to do so in this case resulted in the defendant being denied his constitutional right to counsel at a critical stage. The Supreme Court reversed the appellant’s convictions and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Bolden v. State" on Justia Law