Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court was the proper standard to apply when a fit parent petitions to rescind a guardianship. "Parental rights are fundamental liberties, protected by the State and Federal Constitutions. Fit parents, therefore, are entitled to a presumption that returning their children to their care and custody is in the children’s best interests." The Supreme Court held that the guardianship must be terminated at the request of a fit parent unless the guardian proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the children will suffer physical or emotional harm if the guardianship is terminated. The Family Court found that Appellant’s child would not be dependent or neglected if returned to her custody. Thus, Appellant was a fit parent. The Family Court also found that the child would be happy living with appellant and that there was no concern about domestic violence. Based on this record, the presumption in favor of Appellant was unrebutted. Thus, as a matter of law Appellant’s petition to rescind the guardianship and her petition for custody of her son was due to be granted. View "Tourison v. Pepper" on Justia Law

A woman fell off a curb and injured herself while walking from Dover Downs Casino to a smoking area. The woman sued Dover Downs, claiming in various ways that a problem with the curb led to her fall. Dover Downs moved for summary judgment, and the trial judge granted the motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court judge's decision to grant summary judgment to Dover Downs on all claims. View "Polaski v. Dover Downs, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Malik Brown appealed his conviction on Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine, Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping Cocaine, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. He brought three arguments on appeal: the trial judge (1) unfairly supplemented the jury instruction to include not only selling but also giving in the definition of delivery; (2) abused his discretion by admonishing his counsel in front of the jury; and (3) erroneously prohibited defense counsel from reading the dictionary definition of “substantial” during closing argument. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Brown v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant Vicenzo DiDomenicis was convicted for driving under the influence (DUI). The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the prosecutor's misconduct deprived Defendant of a fair trial. The prosecutor’s opening statement admonished the jury about the dangers of drunk driving, and the need to protect everyone on the road. In addition, the prosecutor pointed out that people who are arrested for DUI may have been arrested seven times before. The State conceded that the prosecutor’s opening statement was improper, but argued that his comments did not amount to plain error. The Supreme Court was "troubled that, after years of decisions addressing improper prosecutor statements to the jury, the State made such a basic error." Nonetheless, the Court concluded that the prosecutor’s comments did not warrant reversal in this case. View "DiDomenicis v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Virginia Edmisten appealed a superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. Plaintiff sued Greyhound alleging that her husband (now deceased) was exposed to asbestos contained in Greyhound products. She argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the superior court erred by impeaching the credibility of witnesses in order to grant summary judgment. Upon review of the trial record, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed. View "Edmisten v. Greyhound Lines, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Derrick Powell appealed his death sentence directly to the Supreme Court. Defendant was convicted for the murder of Georgetown Police Officer Chad Spicer. On appeal, Defendant argued that there were legal flaws in the police investigation of the homicide and in the jury trial that fatally tainted his conviction, and that his death sentence was both unconstitutional and disproportionate to sentences handed down in similar cases. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Defendant's claims lacked merit and affirmed his sentence. View "Powell v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant Kevin Dickens made a direct appeal to the Supreme Court following his conviction of two counts of assault in a detention facility and acquittal of one count of assault in a detention facility. Upon motion by the State, the Superior Court declared Defendant to be a habitual offender and sentenced him to a total period of sixteen years at Level V incarceration to be followed by a sex month term of probation. Defendant raised nine issues on appeal; upon review of each, the Supreme Court found error in the superior court's calculation of Defendant's sentence. The Court affirmed the superior court in all other respects, and remanded the case for resentencing. View "Dickens v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Owner of Pulse Construction Defendant-Appellant Gerry J. Mott appealed appealed a Superior Court judgment which him guilty of one count of Construction Fraud. the Superior Court sentenced him to probation and ordered restitution in the amount of $68,576.89. During the restitution hearing, the trial judge refused to hear testimony regarding a loan of $20,000 Mott claimed he made to the complainants for windows and doors that Mott installed in their home. On appeal, Mott claimed that the sentencing judge improperly interpreted the statutory formula for calculating the amount of loss to a victimized home buyer. He also contended that the trial judge improperly refused to allow testimony at Mott’s restitution hearing regarding the "set off" for the $20,000 given to the home buyers for windows and doors. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment because Mott failed to bring a counterclaim in an earlier mechanics lien suit implicating the $20,000 alleged debt and Super. Ct. Civ. R. 13(a) barred him from doing so. View "Mott v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant, Darren Arnold appealed a Family Court judgment that denied his petition for expungement of his entire juvenile record. Defendant's petition followed a gubernatorial pardon of his adult conviction for Misdemeanor Terroristic Threatening. Defendant contended that the Family Court erred as a matter of law by failing to give effect to title 10, section 1013 of the Delaware Code, which provides for automatic expungement of an individual's juvenile record after that individual receives a gubernatorial pardon. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Defendant's statutory argument was correct, and that the Family Court's order must be reversed. View "Arnold v. Delaware" on Justia Law

After an attorney filed a settlement offer under Rule 68, opposing counsel accepted the offer. Before either attorney filed the offer and acceptance with the Superior Court, the accepting attorney realized he had made a mistake, and revoked his acceptance. The attorney who had extended the offer responded to his revocation by filing the written acceptance, thereby securing a final judgment in the form of the settlement order by means of Super. Ct. Civ. R. 68’s instruction to the Prothonotary. The attorney did not mention that the written acceptance had been revoked before it was filed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court judge’s order denying the Motion to Vacate the Judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ceccola v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law