Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In January 2019, 15-year old Heather Juliano was a passenger in a sport-utility vehicle driven by Shakyla Soto in the vicinity of the Capital Green development in Dover, Delaware. Corporal Robert Barrett of the Dover Police Department was patrolling the area, accompanied by Probation Officer Rick Porter, as part of the Department’s Safe Streets program. Corporal Barrett spotted Soto’s SUV exiting Capital Green and noticed that the occupant of the front passenger seat was not wearing a seat belt. Corporal Barrett decided to pull the vehicle over. Almost immediately after Barrett initiated contact with the driver, he heard Porter say “1015 which means take . . . everybody into custody.” Three other Dover Police Department officers arrived on the scene in very short order. All four occupants of the SUV were removed from the vehicle and handcuffed in response to Porter’s order. The SUV was then searched, but no contraband was found. One officer searched backseat passenger Keenan Teat and found a knotted bag containing crack cocaine in one of his pants pockets. Another officer searched passenger Zion Saunders and found both marijuana and heroin in his jacket pockets. But when Officer Johnson searched Juliano, he found no contraband, but $245.00 in cash. Juliano was later taken to the police station, and strip-searched. Officers found marijuana and a bag of cocaine in her pants. Juliano was charged with Tier 1 possession of narcotics plus an aggravating factor (aggravated possession of cocaine), drug dealing, and possession of marijuana. The Delaware Supreme Court determined there was nothing unreasonable in a motor vehicle stop based on an officer's reasonable suspicion the operator or occupant of the vehicle committed a violation of the law - here, traffic laws. "Equally so, we are not prepared to say that, once a vehicle is lawfully stopped, the police must ignore evidence of other criminal activity when that evidence itself is lawfully uncovered." Rejecting Juliano's appellate claims with regard to the initial traffic stop and the suppression od evidence, the Supreme Court felt compelled to address "certain conspicuous irregularities" in the trial court's order denying Juliano's motion to suppress: (1) the trial court did not articulate a basis for finding a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the extension of the traffic stop to investigate the vehicle's occupants; and (2) the court's order did not explain the basis upon which the custodial arrest and threatened strip search were justified. The matter was remanded to the trial court for more complete statements of the factual and legal bases with respect to Juliano's search and subsequent arrest. View "Juliano v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Appellant Luis Sierra was convicted on two counts of Murder in the First Degree, three counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Robbery in the First Degree, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. His motion for postconviction relief was denied by the Superior Court. On appeal, Sierra claimed the Superior Court erred in rejecting his contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his counsel: (1) failed to call available fact and expert witnesses; (2) failed to object to prejudicial testimony offered by the State; and (3) failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. He also claimed the Superior Court’s denial of his motion was inconsistent with Fowler v. Delaware, 194 A.3d 16 (Del. 2018). Finding no reversible error in the Superior Court's judgment, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sierra v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Todd Green appealed the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Green was arrested during the first week of June 2014 after his girlfriend’s thirteen-year old daughter reported to her sister, a sexual abuse nurse examiner and a Child Advocacy Center forensic interviewer, that Green had raped her on the evening of May 28, 2014 and that “it wasn’t the first time.” A grand jury returned a twenty-two count indictment against Green, and after a five-day trial, he was convicted by jury on three of those counts: attempted rape in the second degree, attempted sexual abuse of a child, and unlawful sexual contact in the second degree. After a pre-sentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Green to a cumulative period of Level V incarceration of 50 years and nine months. To the Delaware Supreme Court, Green appealed his convictions. arguing that the jury’s exposure to several instances of inadmissible testimony had a “cumulative prejudicial effect” and deprived him of a fair trial. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, concluding that “[a]ny prejudicial effect of the testimony relied upon by Green [was] . . . far outweighed by the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.” Green then filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, alleging his trial counsel was ineffective throughout the trial in violation of his Sixth, Eighth, and Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and under Article I, sections 4, 7, and 11 of the Delaware Constitution. Several of the issues at the heart of Green’s ineffective-assistance claims were touched upon in the Supreme Court's earlier order denying Green’s direct appeal, but a few were not. So Green also alleged in his motion that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for not raising those issues. A Superior Court Commissioner “recommend[ed] that Green’s motion be denied as procedurally barred by Rule 61(i)(3) and (4) for failure to prove cause and prejudice and as previously adjudicated.” The trial judge, without addressing the commissioner’s procedural-bar analysis, adopted the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation and denied Green’s motion. In this appeal, Green dropped his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective, but challenged the Superior Court’s determination that his claims were procedurally barred and that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally effective representation. Although the Supreme Court agreed with Green that his claims were not procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(3) and (4), the Supreme Court concluded nonetheless that Green’s trial counsel’s performance, viewed as a whole, did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. Therefore, the Court affirmed. View "Green v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Appellant Dakai Chavis appealed his conviction of first-degree criminal trespass. He raised one issue on appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court: the Superior Court erred during his jury trial by admitting evidence of two prior convictions under Delaware Rule of Evidence 404(b). After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court determined the evidence of Appellant's prior convictions should not have been admitted, and thus reversed the superior court order. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Chavis v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Appellant Maurice Cooper was convicted of: Drug Dealing (Heroin), Aggravated Possession of Heroin, four counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, four counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, and two counts of Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered when the police searched a business because there was no nexus between the evidence sought and the business; (2) denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered when the police searched a residential unit for the same reason as the business (no nexus); and (3) denying his motion to suppress evidence retrieved from his Instagram account pursuant because evidence from searches of the business and residence lead police to the account. In addition. Cooper argued his sentence violated his constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. After review of the trial court record, the Delaware Supreme Court found no merit to Cooper’s claims and affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "Cooper v. Delaware" on Justia Law

In 2018, Appellant Darren Wiggins was arrested for possession of drugs; a vial containing an amber liquid with brown chunks suspended in the liquid. The State’s chemist tested the amber liquid, which tested positive for phencyclidine (“PCP”); she did not test or otherwise identify the brown chunks. The chemist also weighed the liquid PCP and brown chunks together and determined that they weighed 17.651 grams. The chemist did not weigh the liquid or the brown chunks separately. At trial, the State presented no evidence regarding the nature of the brown chunks or their relation to the liquid PCP other than their co-location within the same vial. Nonetheless, the jury found Wiggins guilty of Aggravated Possession of PCP under Delaware’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Relevant here, possession of 15 grams or more of PCP, or of any mixture containing any such substance, was classified as a Class B Felony and carried a minimum sentence of two years at Level V incarceration. The parties’ sole focus in this appeal is on whether a rational jury could have concluded that the State met its burden to prove that the liquid PCP and brown chunks in Wiggins’s vial constituted a “mixture” under the statutory scheme. The Delaware Supreme Court held that the meaning of “mixture” within Delaware’s statutory scheme required a showing that the mixture was marketable or usable. As the State presented no evidence concerning what the brown chunks were, that they were in any way associated with liquid PCP, or that they were conventionally sold or used with PCP mixtures, the State made no showing that the liquid PCP and unidentified brown chunks were a marketable or usable drug mixture. Therefore, the Court vacated the conviction for Aggravated Possession of PCP and remanded for sentencing for the lesser-included offense of Misdemeanor Possession of PCP. View "Wiggins v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Dakai Chavis was indicted by grand jury on four counts of trespassing with the intent to peer or peep, four counts of burglary in the second degree, three counts of burglary in the second degree, and one count of theft of a firearm. A jury acquitted Chavis on all but one of the charges, finding him guilty of the second degree burglary of an apartment at 61 Fairway Road in Newark, Delaware. At that address, unlike the other residences identified in the indictment, the police had obtained a DNA sample from a bedroom window. The police sent that sample to an out-of-state laboratory for analysis, and when they later arrested Chavis and swabbed his mouth for DNA, they sent that sample to the same lab. According to one of the lab’s analysts, the evidentiary sample taken from the bedroom window at the burglary scene matched the reference sample taken from Chavis. It was undisputed that several analysts from the lab handled and performed steps in the analytical process on both samples. Even so, before the trial, the State moved in limine for an order declaring that the out-of-state laboratory’s DNA findings would be “admissible via the testimony of [the lead analyst], and that no one else from [the laboratory] needs to appear for trial.” Chavis opposed the motion, citing the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause and 10 Del. C. sec. 4331. The Superior Court agreed with the State and granted its motion. Finding no reversible error in the Superior Court's judgment, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. View "Chavis v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Anthony Calm was convicted for several weapons charges and resisting arrest. His sole argument on appeal was that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress a firearm and ammunition that the arresting officer found on Calm during a stop of a motor vehicle in which Calm was the passenger. Pat-down searches must be justified by a “reasonable articulable suspicion that the detainee is armed and presently dangerous.” The Delaware Supreme Court determined the Superior Court did not apply this standard, instead concluding that the mere removal of Calm from the vehicle for the purpose of conducting a consent search of the vehicle justified the pat-down of his person. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found the trial court’s other findings indicated that, had it applied the correct standard, the court would have found the State’s proof lacking and granted the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court therefore reversed Calm’s convictions for possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, possession of ammunition by a person prohibited, and carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Because the evidence seized from Calm was not relevant to the resisting-arrest charge, the Supreme Court affirmed that conviction. View "Calm v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Elder Saavedra was convicted by jury of the first-degree murder of Lester Mateo and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony. The court sentenced Saavedra to life in prison for the murder conviction and ten years in prison for the weapons charge. Saavedra argued on appeal that his convictions should be overturned because of the prosecutor’s misconduct and the trial court’s erroneous admission of evidence during his trial. Saavedra also contends that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing another officer to offer lay opinion testimony under D.R.E. 701 regarding the meaning of a phrase uttered in Spanish by Saavedra at the scene, when, according to Saavedra, the opinion was not “rationally based on the witness’s perception.” Finally, Saavedra argued the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when he asked a question that implied that the witness, despite his denial, had identified Saavedra in a video clip during a pretrial interview. Although the Delaware Supreme Court found Saavedra raised some legitimate concerns regarding the officer’s narrative testimony that accompanied the important video evidence, it disagreed with his conclusion that the admission of that testimony, much of which came in without objection and was the subject of two curative instructions, was grounds for reversal. Nor was the Court persuaded that the challenged opinion testimony and the prosecutor’s question that purportedly implied a fact that was not supported by the evidence affected the fairness of Saavedra’s trial. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Saavedra v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Clark and two associates, Rayshaun Johnson and Christopher Harris, were indicted for first degree murder , conspiracy in the first degree, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, for their roles in the shooting death of Theodore “Teddy” Jackson. After Harris pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge and entered into a cooperation agreement with the State, the Superior Court granted Clark’s request that his case be tried separately from Johnson’s. Johnson’s case went to trial first, and a jury convicted him on all indicted charges. Then, after a nine-day trial in September 2017, a jury found Clark guilty of attempted assault in the second degree—purportedly a lesser-included offense of murder in the first degree, and conspiracy in the second degree, a lesser included offense of conspiracy in the first degree. Before he was sentenced, Clark moved the Superior Court for acquittal. When that was denied, Clark was sentenced to four years’ incarceration, followed by descending levels of supervision. On appeal, Clark argued that despite the inescapable fact that Teddy Jackson, the only victim identified in the indictment, was dead, the State failed to present sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury’s finding that Clark, at the time of the alleged crime, intended to cause “serious physical injury.” And because intent to cause “serious physical injury,” as opposed to mere “physical injury,” was an element of attempted assault in the second degree, according to Clark, the Superior Court erred when it denied his post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal. Finding no merit to Clark's claims, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence. View "Clark v. Delaware" on Justia Law