Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Robert Burns was convicted by a jury on several counts of varying degrees of sexual assault against children. The Supreme court previously affirmed Burns' conviction on direct appeal. Burns sought post-conviction relief, arguing that he received inadequate assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights when trial counsel: did not affirmatively recommend Burns take an plea deal; elicited testimony from an adverse witness that could have implied Burns invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence; waived certain foundational requirements to out-of-court statements; permitted a characterization of the complaining witnesses as "victims;" and failed to object to the State's summation. Burns claimed that the cumulative effect of his defense counsel's actions therefore resulted in an unfair trial. The Superior Court denied Burns' motion for post-conviction relief. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Burns v. Delaware" on Justia Law

In a direct appeal, defendant raised one claim of error. In defendant's view, although he was charged with and convicted of felony Promoting Prison Contraband, the record reflected there was a rational basis for the jury to find him guilty of the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor Promoting Prison Contraband. Defendant argued the trial judge's failure to give that lesser-included instruction was reversible error. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that defendant's argument was meritless. View "Mays v. Delaware" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court previously rejected defendant Gary Ploof's claims arising from his trial's guilt phase, but remanded the penalty phase claims for the post-conviction judge to reweigh aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances established at trial and in the post-conviction proceedings. Defendant contended his attorneys were ineffective because they failed to uncover evidence that the defendant's father sexually abused foster children staying with defendant's family and also physically abused defendant himself. Upon careful review, the Supreme Court held that defendant's attorneys should have investigated certain "red flags" indicating that defendant's childhood home was not as benign as initially portrayed. However, the Court concluded that the attorneys' failures did not prejudice defendant. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial judge's denial of defendant's post-conviction relief petition. View "Ploof v. Delaware" on Justia Law

A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant in this case of Failing to Stop at the Command of a Police Officer, Reckless Driving, and several other offenses. At issue in this appeal was the State's obligation to produce relevant material in response to a defendant's discovery appeal. The State failed to produce a recording of the officers' communications with the dispatcher in response to the defendant's discovery request. The recording contained evidence that the officers’ siren had not been activated, contrary to the officers’ testimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the dispatch recording fell within the scope of the defendant’s discovery request and Superior Court Criminal Rule 16, and that failure to produce this evidence prejudiced the defendant because the siren’s was material to the State’s case and impeached the credibility of its key witnesses. Accordingly, we the Court reversed the Superior Court's judgment and remanded for a new trial. View "Valentin v. Delaware" on Justia Law

On August 26, 1992, Jermaine Wright was convicted of first degree murder and other crimes arising from a 1991 robbery at the Hi-Way Inn bar and liquor store. Following a penalty hearing, Wright was sentenced to death. The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Wright's murder conviction should have been overturned. The trial court granted Wright's fourth motion for postconviction relief, finding that his confession should have been excluded from evidence, and that the State improperly withheld evidence of a similar crime that the police determined he did not commit. The trial court then granted bail. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in reviewing the admissibility of the confession sua sponte, and in concluding that there was a so-called Brady violation. The trial court also erred in deciding that Wright could be granted bail. Therefore the trial court's judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Delaware v. Wright" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Stanley Taylor appealed his convictions on: eighteen counts of Unlawful Sexual Conduct Against a Child by a Sex Offender; one count of Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct Against a Child by a Sex Offender; and two counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. The indictment was based on allegations that Defendant engaged in unlawful sexual conduct with his two minor step-granddaughters. To avoid prejudice to Defendant, the sex offender element of his crimes was redacted from the indictment and a separate bench trial was held on that element after the jury returned its verdict. The State dismissed five counts at the close of the evidence. The jury was ultimately left to consider the following charges: four counts of Rape in the First Degree; four counts of Rape in the Second Degree; seven counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Child; one count of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child; and one count of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. Defendant was found guilty of all of the offenses presented to the jury. Thereafter, in a bench trial, the Superior Court found that Defendant was a registered sex offender at the time of the offenses, resulting in guilty verdicts on all of the sex offender charges. Defendant was sentenced to eight life sentences, plus an additional 225 years of incarceration. Defendant has raised four arguments in his direct appeal to the Supreme Court: (1) that the prosecutor made an improper closing argument that jeopardized the fairness and integrity of his trial; (2) that the trial judge abused his discretion and violated Defendant's right to a fair trial when, despite Defendant's request, he refused to strike allegedly irrelevant and highly prejudicial testimonial evidence by a nurse; (3) the trial judge abused his discretion when he allowed the jury to view one of the complainant's out-of-court statements; and (4) the cumulative impact of all of the errors amounts to plain error. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that each of Defendant's first three assignments of error were without merit. Accordingly, there was no cumulative impact amounting to plain error. View "Taylor v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jason Gallaway appealed his conviction for Murder by Abuse or Neglect in the First Degree, in connection to the death of his daughter. Defendant raised one claim of error in this direct appeal: the Superior Court abused its discretion by permitting the State to admit into evidence a YouTube video of Defendant performing a prank as part of a radio contest, several months after his daughter’s death. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the YouTube video was properly admitted as rebuttal evidence. View "Gallaway v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant Omari Clark was convicted for manslaughter. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a trial judge improperly commented on the evidence when he instructed the jury and whether a defendant was entitled to a justification jury instruction for a crime that requires a reckless mental state. Upon review, the Court reaffirmed that jury instructions must be construed as a whole to determine whether a trial judge commented on the evidence and conclude that the trial judge's statements were proper. Furthermore, the Court held that 11 Del. C. sec. 470(a) does not bar a justification instruction for crimes requiring a reckless mental state and that judges should give a justification instruction, where appropriate, for those charges. Therefore the Court reversed the Superior Court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Clark v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Steven Schwan directly appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court after a jury convicted him of two counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree, and a bench trial resulted in an additional conviction for Unlawful Sexual Conduct by a Sex Offender Against a Child. Defendant argued that the trial judge committed reversible error by not excluding, for cause, a juror who was acquainted with a prosecutor, although that same prosecutor was not involved in Defendant's case. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial judge erred by failing to exclude the juror, in the absence of a determination that the juror could render a fair and impartial verdict. The Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Schwan v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant Raymond Blake was tried before a jury for Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession with Intent to Deliver ("PWID") Cocaine, PWID Heroin, and Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled Substances. The jury found Defendant guilty of the lesser-included offenses of Possession of Cocaine and Possession of Heroin, not guilty of Maintaining a Vehicle, and could not agree unanimously on the trafficking charge. Prosecutors sought and obtained another indictment of Defendant, charging him with Trafficking in Cocaine and Trafficking in Heroin, based upon his possession of the same contraband he was convicted of possessing in the first trial. Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied and at the second trial he was convicted as charged. Defendant appealed, claiming the protection against Double Jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution barred the State from trying him on trafficking in a controlled substance charges when he had already been convicted of the lesser included offense of Possession based on the same conduct. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed and accordingly reversed and remanded the case with instruction to vacate Defendant's trafficking convictions. View "Blake v. Delaware" on Justia Law