Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Three officers completed a traffic stop, making "ancillary, permissible inquiries." A probation officer continued to question one of the car's passengers, a probationer, even though the officer testified he had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Officers testified that the car was leaving a "drug area." And drugs were found in the car following the stop. The passenger-probationer was on probation for drug charges. He was ultimately arrested following that stop, and he challenged his arrest on the grounds that officers lacked probable cause to make the arrest. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: "[a]n officer who pulls a car over for speeding does not thereby gain free rein to ask as many questions, for as long a time, as he might wish. Further investigation requires further justification. . . . [the Defendant's] continued detention constituted an impermissible seizure, and the questioning itself violated even the limited rights possessed by a probationer."

Petitioner-Appellant Vanessa Wright appealed a Family Court decision that awarded alimony to Respondent-Appellee David Wright as a result of divorce proceedings. On appeal, Wife contended that: (1) the Family Court abused its discretion and violated her rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 1 of the Delaware Constitution by reducing her tithing when calculating her monthly expenses; and (2) the Family Court erred in its analysis under title 13, section 1512(c) of the Delaware Code by reducing the Husband's earning capacity calculation, and thus requiring the Wife to pay more in alimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that both of the Wife's arguments were without merit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Stephanie Smith appealed a Superior Court's award of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Delaware State University ("DSU") on her claims of wrongful termination under the Delaware Whistleblowers' Protection Act, of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and of common law defamation. Plaintiff raised three arguments on appeal: (1) that the Superior Court erred in finding that Plaintiff failed to present evidence that she was constructively discharged from DSU, sufficient to support a claim under the Act; (2) that the Superior Court erred in failing to consider whether a threat to worsen her working environment could give rise to a claim under the Act; (3) that the Superior Court erred by granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's defamation claim based on her failure to produce any evidence of damages. Upon review, the Supreme Court recognized that a constructive discharge could give rise to a Whistleblower Act claim, but concluded that the Superior Court properly granted summary judgment based on the facts alleged in this case. Because Plaintiff's defamation claim was governed by New York law, it was barred by New York's one-year statute of limitations. Thus, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DSU.

Defendant Bruce Rowan appealed his conviction on 56 counts of breach of condition of release. Defendant was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child, and five counts of fourth degree rape, but he did not challenge those convictions. With respect to the breach of condition convictions, Defendant argued that the Superior Court erred in: 1) denying his motion to dismiss; 2) admitting into evidence tape recordings of his telephone calls from prison to the victim; and 3) admitting into evidence certain bond paperwork from the Justice of the Peace Court. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found find no merit to these arguments, and affirmed Defendant's convictions.

Appellant was carrying a concealed knife in his home when he was arrested. At issue was whether a person could be convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in his home. Under the Delaware Constitution, Delaware citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves, their families, and their homes. Appellant claimed that when the police asked about his knife, he told them it was hidden in his pants. If a jury were to accept appellant's version of the events surrounding his arrest, he would not be subject to prosecution for carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Because the jury was not properly instructed, the court remanded for a new trial on that charge alone.

The court reviewed the Superior Court's denial of a motion to suppress stemming from a traffic stop. Because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, the court reversed the trial judge's denial of the motion to suppress drugs discovered in defendant's bag. Defendant's continued detention constituted an impermissible seizure, and the questioning itself violated even the limited rights possessed by a probationer. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment.

Defendant was found guilty on four charges related to the sexual assault of two minors. At issue was the use of out-of-court statements in criminal prosecutions. The court found that, in this case, the inadmissible comments were made in court, when the interviewer explained the protocol used for interviewing children about sexual abuse. The interviewer offered her opinion that the protocol made it "very obvious when [children] are being truthful." Therefore, that was impermissible vouching and required reversal.

Defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction of Carjacking in the Second Degree. On appeal, defendant argued that the Superior Court "relieved the State of its burden to establish every element of an indicted charge beyond [a] reasonable doubt when it erroneously interpreted...the [statutory] language of [Title 11, section 836(a) of the Delaware Code.]" The court concluded that defendant's argument was without merit where the statute was properly construed and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was found guilty of Attempted Robbery First Degree. On appeal, defendant argued that statements in closing rebuttal argument, asserting that the State brought Attempted Robbery charges because that was exactly what defendant did, constituted improper vouching for the State's case. The court found that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct which prejudicially affected defendant and therefore reversed and remanded.

Defendant was indicted on 29 counts of Dealing in Child Pornography (DCP) and plead guilty to two counts of DCP and the state entered a nolle prosequi on the remaining counts. Defendant, proceeding pro se, subsequently appealed from a Superior Court order denying his motion for postconviction relief on five grounds: (1) violation of due process due to insufficient evidence; (2) violation of double jeopardy; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) abuse of prosecutorial discretion; and (5) "contradictive and ambiguous" colloquy at his sentencing hearing. The court concluded that none of defendant's claims were meritorious and therefore affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court denying the motion.