Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Christopher Wheeler petitioned the Delaware Supreme Court to overturn his conviction of Dealing in Child Pornography. He raised two issues: (1) he challenged a 2014 Superior Court denial of his Amended and Superseding Motion to Suppress, arguing that the nature of “general warrants” were overly broad in scope, and the execution of which violated his federal and State Constitutional rights; and (2) he challenged a second Superior Court denial of his motion for Judgment of Acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence to convict him because the State could not establish that he was aware of the existence of the offending images on his computer, stored in his “newsgroup cache.” Wheeler was sentenced to 50 years at Level V. Throughout these proceedings, Wheeler asserted that the State used charges of witness tampering stemming from his admission in 2013 that he had molested two brothers in Pennsylvania in the 1980’s as a pretext to search broadly for child pornography. The challenged warrants in this case were the witness tampering warrants: not the later-obtained child pornography warrant. The State admitted that the challenged witness tampering warrants were virtual copies of an off-the-shelf warrant for child pornography. Because the Supreme Court agreed that the challenged witness tampering warrants were in the nature of “general warrants” in violation of the United States and Delaware Constitutions, it reversed the judgments of the Superior Court and remanded this matter for further proceedings. View "Wheeler v. Delaware" on Justia Law

The issue in this case was whether defendant-appellant William Morrison’s waiver of his right to trial counsel was “knowing, intelligent and voluntary.” Morrison was arrested on suspicion of trespassing or burglary. At the conclusion of a hearing, Morrison stated he wished to terminate his representation by appointed counsel. The trial judge conducted an inquiry and declined the request. The trial judge informed Morrison that he could either continue to be represented by the appointed defense counsel, or proceed pro se. After reviewing the “incomplete” colloquy between the the trial judge and Morrison, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendant did not waive his right to counsel “knowingly.” Morrison’s conviction was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "Morrison v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Canadian resident Marc Hazout was the President, CEO, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer, and a director of a Delaware corporation, Silver Dragon Resources, Inc. He was sued for acts taken in his official capacity on behalf of the corporation based in Canada. As alleged in the complaint, Hazout was the lead negotiator for Silver Dragon in negotiating a capital infusion from a group of affiliated investors including Tsang Mun Ting and other residents of Hong Kong. That capital infusion when consummated would have required a change of control of Silver Dragon from Hazout and certain others to Tsang and his fellow investors, who would have achieved the right to control Silver Dragon‘s board. Hazout and two other Silver Dragon directors signed the agreement, but a fourth refused. Rather than return $1 million to Tsang, however, Hazout not only caused Silver Dragon to keep it, but also had Silver Dragon send $750,000 of it to Travellers International, Inc., a corporation that Hazout controlled. Tsang therefore brought this suit in the Superior Court of Delaware against Silver Dragon, Hazout, and Travellers for unjust enrichment, fraud, and fraudulent transfer in violation of the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Hazout moved to dismiss on the ground that there was no basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him in Delaware because Tsang was not suing Hazout as a stockholder of Silver Dragon for breach of any fiduciary or other duty owed to Silver Dragon as an entity or Tsang as a stockholder. The Superior Court disagreed and found Delaware law provided a proper basis for personal jurisdiction. The Delaware Supreme Court accepted a certified interlocutory appeal on the personal jurisdiction question from the Superior Court and affirmed: “there is no rational argument that the terms of [10 Del C. sec.] 3114(b) are not satisfied.” View "Hazout v. Ting" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a sexual assault complaint against a Delaware State Police Officer. After the officer, Joshua Giddings, arrested plaintiff-appellant Jane Doe for shoplifting, he threatened to throw her in jail unless she had sex with him. Doe filed suit against Giddings and the State of Delaware. Doe alleged that the superior court erred by: (1) granting the State's motion for summary judgment on sovereign immunity grounds; (2) denying Doe's motion for partial summary judgment on respondeat superior grounds; and (3) granting a motion to dismiss by Giddings' estate. The Supreme Court concluded after review that the State waived sovereign immunity, and therefore, the superior court erred in granting the State's motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded Doe's two other arguments were without merit. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Sherman v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Appellant-defendant Steven Baynum and Manisha Baynum married in 2009. In 2012, the couple experimented with having an “open marriage” and shared an intimate experience with Dakota Holdren (“Dakota”). Thereafter, Manisha was romantically involved with Dakota. In 2013, Manisha filed for divorce. Manisha was granted a Family Court Order affording her exclusive use a property owned by Steven's grandparents. The Order prohibited Baynum from accessing the residence and, as a result, he often stayed with his grandparents at another residence, located on the same property the house now occupied by Manisha. In the early hours of October 24, Dakota and Manisha were at Manisha's home. Interested in “check[ing] out the place,” Baynum communicated with Manisha via text messages and phone calls regarding whether he could come. After being dissuaded by Manisha, Baynum temporarily refrained from going to the house, although he “decided to put a ladder at the base of [28 Harvest Lane’s] driveway . . . .” Later that evening, Manisha was awakened by noises emanating from the bathroom, later discovering Baynum, who jumped on the bed, pulled a blanket off of Dakota, and started punching him. After convincing Baynum to join her in the kitchen, Manisha dialed 9-1-1, but was unable to speak with an operator because Baynum “took the phone out of [her] hands” and “took the battery out of the phone.” Thereafter, Baynum “dragged” Manisha back to the bedroom, where he proceeded to “tie up” Dakota utilizing an ethernet cord. Baynum then pushed Manisha onto her stomach and attempted to tie her hands together using an iPhone charging cord. Manisha testified that she bit Baynum on his arm during the struggle. Baynum responded by punching her in the face and holding a knife to her throat. New Castle County police officers were dispatched to Manisha's house. The next day, Baynum appeared at his grandparents’ residence, explaining to his grandmother that “he had beat the crap out of the man that was living -- sleeping with his wife. And [Baynum] said [he] was just trying to defend [his] -- [his] wedding vows, reaffirming his marriage.” After Baynum left, his grandmother informed the police. The Superior Court denied Baynum’s Motion in Limine prior to his trial on charges stemming from the incident at Manisha's house. The ruling was issued following an evidentiary hearing conducted in connection with Baynum’s Motion, which sought dismissal of his case before trial or, in the alternative, a "Lolly" jury instruction, on the theory that the State failed to collect or preserve potentially material evidence. Baynum appealed his convictions and argued that the Superior Court erred in denying his Motion. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court. View "Baynum v. Delaware" on Justia Law

While off-duty, out of uniform, driving his own car, and under the influence of alcohol, Wilmington Police Officer Michael Spencer ran a red light and collided with a car driven by Morgan McCaffrey. After the accident, Officer Spencer asked McCaffrey to handle the matter without police involvement and to move their damaged cars out of the roadway and into parking spaces in front of McCaffrey’s nearby apartment. Officer Spencer and McCaffrey then went into the apartment, where Officer Spencer undressed and made sexual advances toward McCaffrey, which she refused. McCaffrey called the police after Officer Spencer passed out in her bed. The responding officers took Officer Spencer to the hospital, and later to the police station, where after a delay of five hours, Officer Spencer supposedly passed field tests for intoxication. The Wilmington Police Department (WPD) disciplined Officer Spencer for his conduct that evening. McCaffrey filed suit against Officer Spencer, the WPD, and others, including former Chief of Police Michael Szczerba, stemming from the car accident and Officer Spencer’s admitted inappropriate conduct with McCaffrey. In a series of opinions, the Superior Court dismissed all claims against the defendants other than Officer Spencer, and entered a final judgment excluding Officer Spencer. McCaffrey raised two issues on appeal: (1) the Superior Court erred by dismissing Count I of her complaint arguing that she sufficiently alleged that Spencer was acting within the scope of his employment as a Wilmington Police Officer when he ran into McCaffrey’s car and made inappropriate sexual advances after the accident; (2) that the Superior Court erred in dismissing Count IV, against Chief Szczerba and the City because the County and Municipal Tort Claims Act did not immunize them from suit for Officer Spencer’s actions. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court. View "McCaffrey v. City of Wilmington, et al." on Justia Law

Manuel Morales was found not guilty of Offensive Touching, but guilty of Robbery First Degree, relating to a 2013 incident at a cell phone store in Elsmere. Morales jumped over the counter and demanded money, indicating that, if the store's clerk did not comply, he would kill her. When the clerk opened the register, Morales took money out of it. As he ran out of the store, Morales collided with another woman who was entering the store through the front door. He was sentenced to ten years of incarceration at Level V, suspended after three years for decreasing levels of supervision. Seeking reversal of his conviction and sentence, Morales argued for the first time on appeal that the prosecutor’s statement to the jury during summation that he was “clearly guilty” denied him a fair trial. The Supreme Court concluded the prosecutor’s improper comment did not amount to plain or repetitive error requiring reversal, and therefore, affirmed Morales’s conviction and sentence. View "Morales v. Delaware" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified a question of law arising out of an appeal of a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the Delaware Supreme Court. Paulson Advantage Plus, L.P. (the “Investment Fund”) was a Delaware limited partnership that invested in corporate securities. Paulson Advisers, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Paulson & Co., a Delaware corporation (the Investment Fund Managers) were the general partners and managers of the Investment Fund. One of the Investment Fund’s limited partners was HedgeForum Paulson Advantage Plus, LLC, (the “Feeder Fund”). The Feeder Fund was managed and sponsored by Citigroup Alternative Investments, LLC. AMACAR CPO, Inc. was the Feeder Fund’s managing member. Along with other investors, Plaintiff-appellant Hugh Culverhouse was a member of the Feeder Fund, not a limited partner in the Investment Fund. Culverhouse filed a putative class action against the Investment Fund Managers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The first amended complaint alleged that between 2007 and 2011, the Investment Fund invested about $800 million in a Chinese forestry company. Following another investment firm’s report claiming that the forestry company had overstated its timber holdings and engaged in questionable related-party transactions, the Investment Fund sold its holdings for about a $460 million loss. On appeal of the dismissal for lack of standing, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit determined that resolution of the appeal depended on an unsettled issue of Delaware law. The Eleventh Circuit posited the question to the Delaware Supreme Court on whether the diminution in the value of a limited liability company, serving as a feeder fund in a limited partnership, provides a basis for an investor’s direct suit against the general partners when the company and the partnership allocated losses to investors’ individual capital accounts and did not issue transferrable shares and losses were shared by investors in proportion to their investments. The Delaware Court answered in the negative. View "Culverhouse v. Paulson & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

In this appeal, Mary DiFebo argued that the Superior Court erred by dismissing her amended petition seeking review of a Board of Adjustment decision that granted a variance application for two land plots located near DiFebo's home to be subdivided into four flag lots. The Superior Court had two related reasons for dismissing the amended petition: (1) that DiFebo had not named the owners of the two properties that were the subject of the Board's proceeding within the thirty-day statute of limitations for commencing a petition challenging a Board decision, and for that reason alone she was foreclosed from proceeding; (2) alternatively, the court found that DiFebo had not met the requirements for relation back under Superior Court Civil Rule 15(c)(3). The Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court correctly determined that DiFebo did not satisfy all of Rule 15(c)(3)'s requirements to have her amended petition relate back to her initial filing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of DiFebo's amended petition. View "DiFebo v. Board of Adjustment of New Castle County, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants DeShaun Ketler and Brittany Ketler appealed a Superior Court order granting Defendant-appellee PFPA, LLC’s (“PlanetFitness”) motion for judgment on the pleadings. DeShaun Ketler was injured while using exercise equipment in a Planet Fitness facility. The Ketlers claim that the injuries were caused by negligence on the part of Planet Fitness. The Superior Court found that the Ketlers claim was barred by a signed release of liability. It determined that a release which allowed a party to avoid liability for its own negligence was permissible under Delaware Law if the release is unambiguous, not unconscionable, and not against public policy. It further determined that the release satisfied all three criteria. On appeal, the Ketlers argued the Superior Court erred because the release is ambiguous, unconscionable, and against public policy. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ketler v. PFPA, LLC" on Justia Law