Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-appellant Nathaniel Banks appealed his conviction by jury of assault in the third degree, carrying a concealed weapon and endangering the welfare of a child. He raised one issue on appeal to the Supreme Court: the trial court abused its discretion when it restricted his ability to call witnesses to testify about certain prior acts of the complainant, and thereby violated his federal Constitutional right to present a defense. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded defendant's claim was without merit. Therefore, the Court affirmed Banks' conviction. View "Banks v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Keith Wynn appealed his conviction by jury of one count of Burglary in the Second Degree and two counts of Felony Theft. Wynn raised two claims on appeal: (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct by stating that Wynn was not permitted on the second floor of a dwelling; and (2) the prosecutor argued for an application of Delaware’s burglary statute that was not supported by the record evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that both of Wynn’s arguments lacked merit. View "Wynn v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jermaine Wright appealed a Superior Court order that denied his fourth motion for postconviction relief, and for reimposing Wright's conviction and sentence. Wright was convicted by jury in 1992 for first-degree murder, first-degree robbery and related weapons charges in connection with the death of a liquor store clerk. Wright was then sentenced to death. At trial, the State did not present any forensic evidence including fingerprints, shoe prints, or fibers placing Wright at the scene. Nor did the State present the murder weapon, shell casings, the getaway car, or eyewitnesses to identify Wright. Instead, a jury convicted Wright on his confession to the police while under the influence of heroin and the testimony (since recanted) of a prison informant who testified that Wright admitted the crime. In 2012, the Superior Court vacated Wright’s conviction and sentence because it had “no confidence in the outcome of the trial.” The Superior Court also found that Wright did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights because police obtained his confession through defective warnings. The remaining claims were denied. The State appealed, and a majority of the Delaware Supreme Court reversed, ordering Wright’s conviction and sentence reimposed, because the Miranda issue was procedurally barred and that, given his confession, the evidence about the Brandywine attempted robbery would not have led to a different result. After a reinstatement of his conviction and sentence, Wright now appealed his remaining claims originally denied by the Superior Court. “[W]hen the State withholds from a criminal defendant evidence that is material to his guilt or punishment, it violates his right to due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is exactly what happened here." The Supreme Court vacated Wright’s conviction and death sentence and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Wright v. Delaware" on Justia Law

RB Entertainment is one of a complicated web of at least seventeen different companies that Appellant Jeffrey Cohen allegedly owns and controls. Central to this appeal was one issue: whether the delinquency proceedings for Indemnity Insurance Corporation, RRG violated the constitutional due process rights of Cohen or Co-Appellant RB Entertainment Ventures. Co-Appellant IDG Companies, LLC (Indemnity's managing general agent), was also one of the Cohen-affiliated entities. After uncovering evidence that Cohen had committed fraud in his capacity as Indemnity's CEO and that Indemnity might be insolvent, the Delaware Insurance Commissioner petitioned the Court of Chancery for a seizure order. The Delaware Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act. Based on the detailed allegations and supporting evidence presented by the Commissioner, the Court of Chancery granted that seizure order, which, among other things, prohibited anyone with notice of the proceedings from transacting the business of Indemnity, selling or destroying Indemnity’s assets, or asserting claims against Indemnity in other venues without permission from the Commissioner. The seizure order also prohibited anyone with notice of the proceedings from interfering with the Commissioner in the discharge of her duties. Cohen, who founded Indemnity and had served as its President, Chairman, and CEO, resigned from Indemnity's board during the ensuing investigation and the board removed him from his managerial positions. After his resignation, Cohen interfered with the Commissioner's efforts to operate Indemnity in various ways. The Commissioner returned to the Court of Chancery several times, first seeking an amendment to the seizure order to address Cohen's behavior and then seeking sanctions against him. The Court of Chancery entered a series of orders that increased the restrictions on Cohen's behavior and imposed stiffer sanctions upon him. Cohen argued that he was denied due process at several junctures during the Court of Chancery proceedings. Because Cohen's claims alleged violations of his right to due process, the focus of the Supreme Court's opinion was on whether Cohen was given notice of the allegations against him and a fair opportunity to present his side of the dispute. Having carefully examined the record in this case, the Court concluded that he was given that opportunity: no violation of Cohen's or the affiliated entities' due process rights occurred. View "Cohen, et al. v. State of Delaware, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Donald Pellicone appealed a Superior Court judgment confirming that New Castle County had certain easements on Pellicone's property. The County sought the easements' validation to carry out a flood control project targeting Little Mill Creek in New Castle County. The issues on appeal to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether the Flood Control Project legally constituted a County project; (2) whether the County's condemnation of Pellicone's property fell within the County's statutory eminent domain authority; (3) whether the County's action was a taking of Pellicone's property for a public use as defined by law; and (4) whether the procedures set forth in Chapter 12, Article 7 adhered to. Answering all questions raised on appeal as "yes," the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. View "Pellicone v. New Castle County" on Justia Law

Two certified questions came before the Delaware Supreme Court in this case. The questions centered on whether lease provisions for apartments of a public housing authority that restrict when residents, their household members, and guests may carry and possess firearms in the common areas violate the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found no violation of the Second Amendment or the Delaware Constitution. The certified questions were: (1) whether, under the Delaware Constitution, a public housing agency such as the WHA could adopt a firearms policy; and (2) whether under the Delaware Constitution, a public housing agency could require its residents, household members, and guests to have available for inspection a copy of any permit, license, or other documentation required by state, local, or federal law for the ownership, possession, or transportation of any firearm or other weapon, including a license to carry a concealed weapon. The Delaware court answered both questions in the negative. View "Doe, et al. v. Wilmington Housing Authority, et al." on Justia Law

This case was one of thirty-two cases filed against defendant-appellee E.I. DuPont de Demours and Company, Inc. (DuPont) by Argentine nationals who claimed they were exposed to asbestos while working in textile plants in Argentina. Plaintiff-appellant Maria Elena Martinez, widow of an Argentine plant worker, alleged her husband suffered injuries from the asbestos exposure. The Superior Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for inadequate pleading, failing to state a claim, failing to join necessary parties, and for forum non conveniens. Plaintiff appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, arguing the Superior Court erred in its ruling. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court. View "Martinez, et al. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Iziah Ashley appealed his convictions on two counts of Rape in the Second Degree, three counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact with a Child Under the Age of 13, Bribing a Witness, Interfering with a Child Witness, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied severance of several claims because a single trial did not serve the judicial economy and caused substantial prejudice to defendant; (2) the trial court abused its discretion and violated Ashley’s right to a fair trial when it refused to grant a mistrial or issue a curative instruction when the State elicited highly prejudicial testimony from the victim’s mother; and, (3) the cumulative impact of all of the errors amounts to plain error. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that defendant's claims were without merit. Therefore, the judgments of the Superior Court were affirmed. View "Ashley v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Darryl Copper appealed his convictions for Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Defendant contended he was denied his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury because the jurors heard him say that he was not content with the jury and because one juror heard him say that he wanted to take a plea. Finding Defendant's claims was without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Copper v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants Marlene and Paul Dabaldo, Jr. filed a complaint against nineteen defendants, including defendant-appellee, URS Energy & Construction, f/k/a/ Washington Group International, as successor to Raytheon Constructors, f/k/a/ Catalytic, Inc. and Crane Co. Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. DaBaldo developed pulmonary asbestosis as a result of exposure to asbestos from defendants' companies and sought recovery for those alleged injuries. After the completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that the DaBaldos' claims were barred under the two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims. The Superior Court ruled from the bench that the DaBaldos' claims were time-barred. Plaintiffs argued on appeal that their 2009 complaint was timely filed. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court record supported plaintiffs' assertion. Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court was reversed. View "Dabaldo v. URS Energy & Construction, et al." on Justia Law