Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Broadmeadow Investment, LLC appealed a Superior Court judgment that dismissed its appeal of a Delaware Health Resources Board decision. The Board granted HealthSouth Middletown Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC a Certificate of Public Review (CPR). The Superior Court held that Broadmeadow lacked standing to appeal under 16 Del. C. section 9305(8). Broadmeadow sought the Supreme Court's review to reverse the Superior Court and remand the matter for its appeal to go forward on the merits. Upon review of Broadmeadow's arguments raised on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court erred by dismissing Broadmeadow’s appeal on the basis it lacked standing under 16 Del. C. section 9305: "[w]e hold that reading the entire statutory scheme in pari materia, Broadmeadow does have the right to appeal the Board’s decision." View "Broadmeadow Investment, LLC v. Delaware Health Resources Board, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Rashid Roy directly appealed his convictions of Murder in the First Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited, Assault in the Third Degree, and Terroristic Threatening to the Supreme Court. Defendant argued: (1) that police lacked the articulable suspicion necessary to detain him for an investigatory stop and therefore lacked probable cause to arrest him; and (2) that even though he stipulated to the introduction of his drug usage at trial, the State erroneously failed to connect that drug usage to any of the purposes permitted by the Delaware Rules of Evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that both of Defendant's arguments were without merit. View "Roy v. Delaware" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court on appeal in this case was the meaning of the term "regularly residing" as used in Delaware’s alimony statute. The Family Court denied appellant's petition to terminate alimony, finding that appellee and her companion were not permanently or continuously residing together. The trial court focused on the fact that appellee and her companion maintained separate homes, and the absence of evidence as to whether they spent the majority of their free time together. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that that the trial court applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the evidence: (1) the term "regularly residing" means "liv[ing] together with some degree of continuity . . . .;" (2) the fact that appellee and her companion were retirees did not change the analysis of whether they were regularly residing together; and (3) two people may be regularly residing together even though they maintain separate homes. View "Paul v. Paul" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Maurice Williams appealed his Superior Court conviction for Escape After Conviction. The charges stemmed from Defendant's failing to return to the Plummer Center in Wilmington as scheduled after he received a medical pass to leave the premises. Defendant raised two claims on appeal: (1) the trial judge abused her discretion when she refused to allow him to proceed pro se during his trial; and (2) she denied his request for the jury to consider a defense of justification. Because Defendant's request to represent himself was denied without a colloquy and the required legal analysis, the Supreme Court was "compelled" to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Delaware" on Justia Law

A State Trooper stopped a Hells Angels member for speeding. When asked where he was going, the defendant "cordially" declined to answer. The State Trooper informed the defendant he would pat him down, and the defendant revealed he possessed two handguns. The State appealed the trial court's ultimate decision to suppress evidence of the handguns that were used to support two counts of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court judge's grant of defendant's motion to suppress because under the totality of the circumstances, no particularized, reasonable, articulable suspicion that the defendant was armed and dangerous existed. View "Delaware v. Abel" on Justia Law

A passenger in a car stopped by the police for illegally tinted windows claimed to have no identification and provided the officer with a false identity. The driver was not permitted to operate the car further, and officers were prepared to allow the passenger to drive so long as he had his license. After a database search returned no results, the officer handcuffed the passenger and recovered a gun during a pat down. The passenger was later charged by a grand jury of possessing a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, carrying a concealed deadly weapon, receiving a stolen firearm, and criminal impersonation. The passenger appealed his convictions, maintaining that officers lacked probable cause for detaining and arresting him, and the that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence the officers found that was ultimately used against him. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the officer possessed probable cause to arrest the passenger for criminal impersonation. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial judge's denial of a motion to suppress the gun. View "Stafford v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant Dallas Drummond, Jr., directly appealed to the Supreme Court after having been convicted by a Superior Court jury on two counts of First Degree Rape and one count of Unlawful Conduct Against a Child by a Sex Offender. Defendant claimed that the trial court reversibly erred by denying his (and the State's) joint motion to sever the Rape charges from the Unlawful Conduct charge. While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided "Monceaux v. State" which relevantly held that a trial court "must use a bifurcated procedure in all future [Unlawful Conduct Against a Child by a Sex Offender] cases." Because "Monceaux" controlled this case, the Court reversed the convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Drummond v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Solomon Collins appealed his convictions by a jury of Murder First Degree, two counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and three counts of Reckless Endangering First Degree. Collins was charged with the shooting death of Tommear Tinnin. At trial, the State offered into evidence two out-of-court statements that identified Collins as the shooter of Tinnin. The declarants, Violet Gibson and Shakira Romeo, denied making the statements during their in-court testimony. The statements were admitted into evidence based upon the testimony of Detective Patrick Conner, the officer who interviewed Gibson and Romeo. After eleven hours of deliberation, the jury reported to the trial judge that they were deadlocked. The trial judge gave an "Allen" charge and instructed the jury to deliberate further. Two hours later, the jury returned the guilty verdicts. Collins raised three claims on appeal: (1) there was an insufficient foundation to admit into evidence the out-of-court statement of Gibson; (2) there was an insufficient foundation to admit into evidence the out-of-court statement of Romeo; and (3) that the trial judge erred in administering an Allen charge, which, as administered, was coercive. "Gibson and Romeo were classic turncoat witnesses." The Supreme Court concluded that the testimony at trial presented a sufficient foundation for the admission of their out of-court statements: the record showed that their out-of-court statements were given voluntarily, they were each subject to cross examination at trial, and their in-court testimony touched on both the events perceived and the content of their prior statements. The Court also concluded that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in giving an Allen charge. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "Collins v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Cookie A. Hunter appealed his judgments of conviction, after a Superior Court jury trial, of Assault in the Second Degree, Resisting Arrest with Force or Violence, and Driving Under the Influence, First Offense. Defendant raised two issues in his direct appeal to the Supreme Court: (1) it was error for the trial judge to admit the results of his blood alcohol content (BAC) blood test into evidence because the foundational requirements necessary to admit that scientific evidence were not met; (2) the trial judge erred by not granting his motions for judgments of acquittal on the Assault and Resisting Arrest charges, because the State failed to preserve the videotape that recorded the events that led to those charges. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the results of the BAC test were erroneously admitted into evidence. Therefore, the DUI judgment of conviction was reversed. Furthermore, the Court determined that Defendant's motions for judgments of acquittal on the Assault and Resisting Arrest charges were properly denied. Consequently, the judgments of the Superior Court were affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Hunter v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Pablo Melendez appealed his convictions after a Superior Court jury trial stemming from numerous actual and attempted robberies. Defendant was convicted of: eighteen counts of Robbery in the First Degree, thirty-three counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, eleven counts of Wearing a Disguise, six counts of Conspiracy in the Second Degree, six counts of Aggravated Menacing, eight counts of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, and one count of Reckless Endangering in the First Degree. In this appeal, Defendant claimed that the trial judge erred by admitting "improper witness bolstering and needlessly cumulative evidence when, despite their lack of personal knowledge, [two] police [officers] were allowed to provide their own interpretations and opinions of what happened during the [crimes]." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendant waived his claim by failing to raise it at trial. Therefore, the judgments of the Superior Court were affirmed. View "Damiani-Melendez v. Delaware" on Justia Law