Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Peter Kostyshyn of three crimes. He appealed, claiming that the Superior Court judge erred by finding he forfeited his right to appointed counsel, even though he screamed "You’re an idiot" at one of his attorneys during a court hearing, and then managed to drive off his next attorney by engaging in behavior the Superior Court judge deemed "abusive." Kostyshyn claimed that the Superior Court judge erred by failing to order, sua sponte, a competency hearing, even though the judge conducted lengthy colloquies about all aspects of Kostyshyn’s case. Finally, Kostyshyn argued that the trial judge’s clarifying instruction to the jury constituted an impermissible comment on what facts the jury should find. Finding no merit to any of these arguments, the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.

A grand jury indicted Defendant Jeffrey Rose for: (1) Trafficking in Cocaine, (2) Possession with Intent to Deliver, (3) Maintaining a Dwelling for Keeping Controlled Substances, and two other charges. The indictment for Maintaining a Dwelling referenced Counts I and II. The jury acquitted Defendant of those two Counts but convicted Rose on the Maintaining a Dwelling charge. Defendant argued on appeal that his conviction were based on insufficient evidence because Counts I and II were predicate offenses on which the jury acquitted him. The Supreme Court found no merit to Defendant's argument and affirmed.

Defendant-Appellant Patrick Monceaux appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss charges against him under Section 777A of the Delaware Code. He contended that the statute violated his right to due process under the United States and the Delaware Constitutions because placing his status as a sex offender directly in issue lessened the State's burden of proof and the presumption of innocence. He also contended that the trial judge erred by failing to address this constitutional argument when denying his motion to dismiss. Instead, the trial judge bifurcated the trial into two phases. In the first phase, the elements of the Unlawful Sexual Contact Second Degree charge were tried before a jury with no evidence of Monceaux's status as a sex offender. With the consent of Monceaux, the second phase of the trial, limited to determining his status as a registered sex offender, was tried before the trial judge. The bifurcation procedure used by the trial judge in this case prevented the jury from hearing evidence of Monceaux's sex offender status before determining his guilt for purposes of Section 777A. For that reason, the Supreme Court found no merit to Monceaux's constitutional claim. Furthermore, the Court held that the Superior Court must use a bifurcation procedure in all future Section 777A cases, to avoid the potential constitutional issues raised here. Finally, because the alternate relief requested in Monceaux's motion to dismiss was bifurcation, which the trial judge granted, Monceaux's second claim on appeal lacked merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.