State v. Scott ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    STATE OF DELAWARE
    v. : I.D. NO. 1705019765
    CLEVELAND SCOTT
    Submitted: February 7, 2018
    Decided: February 12, 2018
    On Defendant’s Motion for NeW Trial
    GRANTED
    ORDER
    Following a bench trial, the Count found Defendant Guilty of Driving Under
    the Influence and Resisting Arrest. Because the Driving Under the Influence Was
    for a third offense, requiring mandatory incarceration, Defendant’s bail Was
    revoked. This matter involves some urgency because Defendant remains
    incarcerated pending sentencing
    The case primarily turned on Witness credibility. lt Was not disputed that
    Defendant Was intoxicated HoWever, Defendant testified that he Was not under
    the influence of alcohol at the time he operated the vehicle. Defendant stated that
    he Was driving the car at the time of the accident. Subsequently, he returned to his
    home, began drinking, and then returned to the scene of the accident. Defendant
    denied that he occupied the vehicle upon his return.
    The arresting officer did not observe Defendant in the vehicle. Defendant
    was placed behind the wheel of the car by a single witness - a tow truck driver
    called to the scene. The driver testified that Defendant was in the car with the
    motor running, and appeared intoxicated
    Prior to trial (and unknown to the Court), Defendant requested Brady
    material and any criminal record of prosecution witnesses. The State’s response
    did not include the name of the tow truck driver. The State initially did not believe
    the tow truck driver had any useful information. Defendant informed the State that
    the witness had exculpatory information because the police report indicated that
    the witness had not seen Defendant driving a vehicle. The State agreed to call the
    witness at trial.
    On the morning of trial, the State informed Defense Counsel that the witness
    had a criminal record, and that the State would provide a copy of the record when
    the witness testified Although the State then printed a copy of the tow truck
    driver’s record, the State has informed the Court that the Deputy forgot to inform
    Defense Counsel of the witness’ prior convictions - two crimes of dishonesty.
    Defense Counsel did not request the criminal record until after the Court had found
    Defendant guilty.
    This Motion for New Trial is based on a Brady violation.l The State
    concedes that Defense Counsel should have been provided with the witness’
    criminal record, but argues that a new trial is not warranted because Defense
    Counsel were aware of the existence of the record and did not raise the issue with
    the Court prior to the verdict.
    “When a defendant is confronted with delayed disclosure of Brady material,
    reversal will be granted only if the defendant was denied the opportunity to use the
    material effectively.”2 A new trial will be granted if the information was material
    to the determination of guilt and failure to provide the evidence undermined
    confidence in the outcome of the trial.3
    At the close of the bench trial, the Court enumerated the reasons for finding
    Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There were several reasons for
    questioning Defendant’s credibility. The Court weighed the tow truck driver’s
    testimony, found him credible, and determined that Defendant was operating the
    vehicle while he was under the infiuence.
    The Court now holds that the witness’ criminal record, involving two crimes
    of dishonesty, would have undermined the Court’s confidence in the outcome of
    lBraa'y v. Maryland, 
    373 U.S. 83
    (1963).
    2W/'ll'l‘e V. Siale, 816 A.Zd 776, 778 (Del. 2003).
    3Atkl`nson v. State, 
    778 A.2d 1058
    , 1063 (Del. 2001).
    the trial. The State’s failure to provide the criminal record before the witness was
    excused denied Defendant the opportunity to use the material effectively. The
    Court notes that there is no indication that the State’s failure was intentional.
    THEREFORE, Defendant’s Motion for New Trial is hereby GRANTED.
    DEFENDANT’S BAIL IS HEREBY REIMPOSED. DEFENDANT SHALL
    BE RELEASED FROM CUSTODY FORTHWITH UPON PAYMENT OF
    BAIL.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Mary M. J ston, Mige
    Original to Prothonotary
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1705019765

Judges: Johnston J.

Filed Date: 2/12/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/12/2018