Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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.

In this appeal the issue before the Supreme Court concerned whether the affidavit filed in support of a search warrant supported a magistrate's finding of probable cause. The affidavit described a confidential source as "past proven and reliable" without explaining the basis for that statement. In addition, the affidavit described the activities of a "drug detection K-9," but it did not state that the dog was trained and certified. Notwithstanding these omissions, the totality of the circumstances supported the magistrate's decision authorizing the search warrant. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Elizabeth, Edmond, John and James Plummer appealed a Superior Court order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee R.T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc. Vanderbilt moved to dismiss the Plummers' appeal as untimely. Vanderbilt took the position that the Superior Court's June 28, 2011 dismissal order was the final order in the matter below. Thus, Vanderbilt contended, the Plummers' notice of appeal filed on September 6, 2011 was untimely under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(i). Vanderbilt argued in the alternative that if the June 28 Order was not the final order, the appeal is interlocutory and any appeal must await entry of a final order. The Plummers contended that their appeal was timely and not interlocutory because a Special Master's August 9, 2011 order dismissing nine defendants and not the June 28 Order, constituted the final order. The Plummers contended that under accepted Superior Court practice, the June 28 Order was not understood to be final. After its review of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that the June 28 Order was the only final order in this case and that no court error contributed to the Plummers' delayed filing of this appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Plummers' appeal as untimely under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).

Defendant-Appellant Maurice Williams appealed his Superior Court conviction and sentence for Violation of Probation. Defendant contended on appeal that the Superior Court abused its discretion when it found him in Violation of Probation following his escape from Level IV custody, because he would not have been in custody but for an illegal sentence. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no merit to Defendant's appeal and affirmed his conviction and sentence.

This case centered on whether a Justice of the Peace properly granted a search warrant based on the information in the affidavit of probable cause placed before her. "When reviewing a motion to suppress the evidence police discovered while executing a search warrant, Superior Court judges should give substantial deference to the magistrate's finding on the existence of probable cause. Resolution of this case require[d] elaboration about the meaning of 'substantial deference.' Upon review, the Supreme Court held that "substantial deference" means that if some facts in the affidavit of probable cause support the inference that evidence of criminal activity exists in a particular place, the Superior Court judge should affirm the issuance of a search warrant. Consequently, the Court reversed the Superior Court's judgment granting the motion to suppress, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Pro se prisoner Defendant-Appellant Damar Smith appealed his conviction and sentence for Rape in the Third Degree, Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree, and Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited. His notice of appeal was received by the Supreme Court on February 28, 2012, one day after the thirty-day deadline to appeal from his January 27, 2012 sentence. The Court directed Defendant to show cause as to why his appeal should not have been dismissed under Rule 29(b). The Court then directed the State to file a supplemental memorandum addressing whether the Court should re-examine its holding in "Carr v. Delaware" and adopt the Federal "mailbox rule" set forth in "Houston v. Lack." The State took the position that the Court should again decline to adopt the federal prison mailbox rule. Amicus curiae argued that the Court should adopt the rule, in light of changed prison mail procedures and for the policy reasons set forth in "Houston" and subsequent cases. Last year, in "Hickman v. Delaware," the Delaware Supreme Court considered the same issue and declined to adopt the federal prison mailbox rule; it reached the same conclusion in this case. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Defendant's appeal as untimely.

Plaintiff Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. appealed a Chancery Court judgment granting Defendant Vulcan Materials Company relief on its counterclaims, and an accompanying injunction. The Chancery Court enjoined Martin for a four month period from continuing to prosecute its pending Exchange Offer and Proxy Contest to acquire control of Vulcan. That injunctive relief was granted to remedy Martin's adjudicated violations of two contracts between Martin and Vulcan: a Non-Disclosure Letter Agreement (the "NDA") and a Common Interest, Joint Defense and Confidentiality Agreement (the "JDA"). Finding that the Chancery Court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the equities favored Vulcan, the Supreme Court affirmed that court's decision.