Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

On the evening of December 18, 2022, a witness observed Kevin Stevens driving erratically in Wilmington, Delaware, nearly hitting another car and colliding with a parked vehicle. The witness followed Stevens, who eventually parked across two spaces at a shopping center and appeared disoriented before entering a Rite Aid pharmacy. Inside, Stevens was seen slumped over and fell to the floor, prompting the store manager to call the police. When Trooper Setting arrived, he noted that Stevens did not show signs of alcohol intoxication but appeared incoherent and unable to complete field sobriety tests. Stevens was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs. Blood tests later revealed the presence of flubromazepam, a benzodiazepine derivative, and fentanyl.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware conducted a jury trial in March 2024. Stevens testified in his own defense, denying the erratic driving and claiming physical limitations prevented him from performing sobriety tests. He also challenged the admissibility of the State’s toxicology evidence, arguing that the State failed to provide sufficient foundation for the blood test results because it did not introduce calibration records for the testing machines. The trial judge overruled these objections, finding that the State’s expert witnesses provided adequate testimony regarding the machines’ calibration and reliability. Stevens was convicted of driving under the influence of drugs and driving with a suspended license. His motion for a new trial, based on similar evidentiary arguments, was denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed whether the Superior Court erred in admitting the toxicology evidence without calibration records. The Supreme Court held that there is no bright-line rule requiring the State to introduce calibration documents when expert witnesses testify to the reliability and calibration of laboratory equipment. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s evidentiary rulings and affirmed Stevens’s convictions. View "Stevens v. State" on Justia Law

An eleven-year-old girl, I.G., accused her 22-year-old cousin, Marckenley Gustave, of repeated sexual assaults while they lived together in Delaware. I.G. testified that Gustave assaulted her on five occasions when they were alone, describing specific acts and referencing text messages and gifts related to the abuse. After I.G. disclosed the abuse to her mother, she was taken to a hospital, where both she and Gustave tested positive for chlamydia. Gustave was interviewed by police, during which he made incriminating statements, and then evaded law enforcement for several weeks before being arrested.A New Castle County grand jury indicted Gustave on multiple counts, including Rape First Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact First Degree. During the Superior Court jury trial, the State played two short video clips from Gustave’s police interview—first to impeach his trial testimony and later as substantive evidence through a detective’s testimony. The State moved to admit the clips as exhibits after the close of evidence, and the trial court marked them as court exhibits, not to be sent to the jury. Due to a clerical error, the clips were mistakenly provided to the jury during deliberations. The court promptly removed them and issued a curative instruction. Gustave’s motions for a mistrial and a new trial, based on this error, were denied. The jury convicted him on several counts, and he was sentenced to 81 years.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying the motions. The Supreme Court held that the trial court applied the correct legal standards, found no actual or inherent prejudice from the error, and that the curative instruction was sufficient. The convictions were affirmed. View "Gustave v. State" on Justia Law

Capice Johnson was convicted of attempted murder in the first degree, reckless endangering in the first degree, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The incident involved a drive-by shooting in Middletown, Delaware, where a masked man on an orange dirt bike fired at least 17 shots at Siyona Jones and Thomas Haye, critically injuring Jones. Surveillance footage and other evidence, including images from Johnson’s cell phones, linked him to the crime. Johnson was sentenced to 75 years of incarceration, suspended after 30 years for probation.In the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Johnson was found guilty on all counts except for carrying a concealed deadly weapon without a license. His defense strategy was to create reasonable doubt about the identity of the shooter. The State’s key witness, Detective Joshua Stafford, provided testimony while surveillance videos were played to the jury. Johnson did not request a limiting instruction regarding Stafford’s narration of the videos, and the jury was instructed that they were the sole judges of the facts and witness credibility.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The court held that the trial judge did not err in failing to provide a limiting instruction sua sponte regarding Stafford’s testimony. The court found that Stafford’s testimony was a neutral explanation of the surveillance footage and did not constitute lay-opinion identification testimony. Additionally, the jury was properly instructed on their role as fact-finders. Even if the failure to give a limiting instruction was considered an error, it did not rise to the level of plain error that would have affected the outcome of the trial. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

Steven Kellam was convicted in the Superior Court of Delaware for racketeering, two counts of first-degree felony murder, and other crimes, resulting in two life sentences plus 770 years in prison. Kellam sought postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, arguing that his convictions were unjust. The Superior Court rejected all but one of his claims, agreeing that the felony-murder jury instruction misstated the law, leading to the vacatur of his felony-murder convictions and life sentences.Kellam appealed the Superior Court's rejection of two grounds for postconviction relief. He argued that the amendment of his indictment was so substantive that it resulted in his conviction for racketeering without proper indictment, undermining the court's jurisdiction. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for his trial lawyer's failure to request a jury instruction on accomplice liability.The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the case. It found that Kellam's challenge to the indictment amendment was procedurally barred because he did not object during the trial and failed to show cause and prejudice. The court also determined that the alleged defect in the indictment was curable and did not divest the Superior Court of jurisdiction.Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court concluded that Kellam's trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to request a Section 274 instruction, as it would not have benefited Kellam and could have undermined the defense's credibility.The State cross-appealed, arguing that the Superior Court erred in vacating Kellam's felony-murder convictions due to the flawed jury instruction. The Delaware Supreme Court agreed, distinguishing this case from Ray v. State, and found that the faulty instruction did not prejudice Kellam's defense. The court reversed the Superior Court's vacatur of Kellam's felony-murder convictions and remanded for reinstatement of those convictions and sentences. View "Kellam v. State" on Justia Law

Tyler Ford was involved in a fatal car accident where he raced his friend, Kyle Fischer, towards a busy intersection, ran a red light, and collided with another vehicle, killing its driver, Nathaniel Milton. Ford was driving at a high speed, weaving through traffic, and did not brake before the collision. He later claimed that his brakes were malfunctioning, but a mechanic found no issues with them. Ford was charged with second-degree murder, driving under the influence, improper passing, and disregarding a red light.The Superior Court of Delaware held a jury trial where Ford was convicted of second-degree murder and related traffic offenses but acquitted of one DUI charge. Ford moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, both of which were denied by the Superior Court. The court found that the evidence supported the jury's verdict and that the jury instructions were appropriate.The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Ford guilty of second-degree murder, as his actions demonstrated a "cruel, wicked, and depraved indifference to human life." The court also found that the jury instructions were correct and that any minor errors in the oral instructions were harmless, as the written instructions provided to the jury were accurate. Additionally, the court ruled that the video of the collision was admissible and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court concluded that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in any of its rulings, and Ford's convictions were upheld. View "Ford v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of stalking, harassing, and making terroristic threats against his ex-girlfriend while in prison. The threats, made via telephone and text messages, were numerous and vile, often including a racial slur. The evidence consisted of recordings of phone calls and a log of text messages. The racial slurs were not directed at the ex-girlfriend nor integral to the specific threats.The defendant moved to redact the racial slur from the evidence, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the defendant had no basis to object to the jury hearing the slur since he had used it. The court did not consider whether the probative value of the slur was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect, which was an error.The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the trial court erred by not conducting the required balancing test under Delaware Rule of Evidence 403. The Supreme Court held that the admission of the racial slur was an error but concluded that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence against the defendant. The court also addressed other issues raised by the defendant, including challenges to jury instructions and a double jeopardy claim, but found them without merit.The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that the trial court's error in admitting the racial slur did not affect the outcome of the trial. The court emphasized the importance of conducting a proper balancing test when considering the admissibility of potentially prejudicial evidence. View "Jewell v. State" on Justia Law

Donovan Kent was indicted on six counts, including Rape Second Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact, involving a minor, S.A., who was six years old at the time. The incidents allegedly occurred between July 1, 2017, and October 11, 2017, at S.A.'s aunt's residence and S.A.'s home. During the trial, the State amended one count to change the location of the incident but was denied an amendment to extend the date range. Kent was found guilty of several counts, including Attempted Rape Second Degree and Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child. He was sentenced to 29 years of incarceration followed by probation.Kent's motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial were denied by the Superior Court. On direct appeal, Kent argued that the evidence was insufficient for some convictions and that the jury instructions were confusing. The Delaware Supreme Court rejected these claims and affirmed the Superior Court's rulings.Kent then filed a motion for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his trial counsel unreasonably introduced evidence of a second potential victim and failed to move for judgment of acquittal on the Continuous Sexual Abuse charge. The Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion, finding that trial counsel's strategy was reasonable and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for Continuous Sexual Abuse.The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The court agreed that trial counsel's decision to impeach a witness was a reasonable strategy and that there was no prejudice from not moving for judgment of acquittal, as the evidence supported the jury's findings. View "Kent v. State" on Justia Law

Conduent State Healthcare, LLC (Conduent) was hired by the State of Texas to administer its Medicaid program. In 2012, Texas began investigating Conduent for allegedly helping orthodontics offices overbill for services. Texas sued several orthodontic providers in 2014, and the providers sued Conduent. Texas terminated its contract with Conduent and sued Conduent under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act. Conduent was insured by AIG Specialty Insurance Company, ACE American Insurance Company, and Lexington Insurance Company, among others. The insurers provided defense coverage for the provider actions but denied coverage for the state action, claiming it involved fraudulent conduct excluded by the policies.The Superior Court of Delaware found that the insurers breached their duty to defend Conduent in the state action. The court also ruled that Conduent was relieved of its duties to cooperate and seek consent before settling with Texas due to the insurers' breach. The jury found that Conduent acted in bad faith and fraudulently arranged the settlement but did not collude with Texas or settle unreasonably. The Superior Court granted a new trial due to evidentiary issues and the jury's inconsistent verdicts.The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court's rulings. It held that the insurers' breach of their duty to defend excused Conduent from its duties to cooperate and seek consent. The court also ruled that the policy's fraud exclusion did not bar indemnity coverage because the settlement was allocated to breach of contract damages. The court found that the evidentiary issues and the jury's inconsistent verdicts justified a new trial to prevent manifest injustice. View "AIG Specialty Insurance Company v. Conduent State Healthcare, LLC" on Justia Law

The defendant, while under the influence of illegal drugs, killed a police officer and assaulted several others. He claimed that his behavior was due to someone substituting bath salts for his methamphetamine, and sought to use a statutory involuntary intoxication defense. The Superior Court granted a motion in limine, preventing the presentation of this defense and deemed the defendant’s evidence inadmissible.The Superior Court of Delaware reviewed the case. The court examined whether a person who knowingly introduces an unlawful intoxicating substance into their body can present an involuntary intoxication defense if the substance or its effects differ from what was anticipated. The court concluded that under Title 11, Section 423 of the Delaware Code, a person who knowingly introduces an unlawful intoxicating substance into their body is precluded from presenting an involuntary intoxication defense unless certain statutory exceptions apply.The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. The court held that the statutory language was unambiguous and that a person who knowingly introduces an unlawful intoxicating substance into their body cannot claim involuntary intoxication unless specific statutory exceptions are met. The court did not address the admissibility of the defendant’s evidence under Rule 702 and 11 Del. C. § 303, as the defense was unavailable as a matter of law. The court also found that precluding the defense did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense. View "Wilkerson v. State" on Justia Law

In 2005, James E. Cooke, Jr. was convicted of the rape and murder of Lindsey Bonistall, a University of Delaware student. Cooke's first conviction was overturned in 2009 due to his defense counsel's strategy, which conflicted with Cooke's plea of not guilty. Cooke was retried in 2012, where he represented himself initially but was later replaced by standby counsel due to his disruptive behavior. He was again convicted and sentenced to death, which was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court in 2014.Cooke filed a motion for postconviction relief in 2015, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and other errors. The Superior Court denied his motion, leading to this appeal. Cooke argued that his second-trial counsel failed to explore his competency to stand trial, did not adequately investigate the case, and failed to object to the State's peremptory challenges during jury selection. He also claimed cumulative errors and procedural issues with the court's denial of his continuance requests and discovery limitations.The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the claims and found that Cooke's counsel acted reasonably given Cooke's insistence on testifying and his refusal to cooperate with mental health evaluations. The court also found that Cooke was competent to stand trial, and his counsel's decisions were within the bounds of reasonable professional assistance. The court held that Cooke's claims of cumulative error and procedural issues were without merit and affirmed the Superior Court's denial of postconviction relief. View "Cooke v. State" on Justia Law