State v. Ackridge ( 2021 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
v. ) ID Nos. 1911015539
) 2001004704
WILLIAM ACKRIDGE, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Submitted: November 19, 2020
Decided: January 12, 2021
Upon Consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Charges to Family Court,
GRANTED.
Jillian Schroeder, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for the State.
John Barber, Office of Defense Services, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for
Defendant.
MEDINILLA, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant William Ackridge at 17 years of age1 stands accused of Assault
First and Second Degrees, Reckless Endangering First Degree, Conspiracy Second
Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”),
and Possession, Purchase, Own or Control of a Firearm (Handgun) by a Prohibited
Juvenile. 2 He seeks to transfer his charges to Family Court under 10 Del. C. § 1011
and challenges whether the State has established its burden of proof positive or
presumption great for the PFDCF charges under 11 Del. C. § 1447A(f). Upon
consideration of the reverse amenability hearing held on November 19, 2020, the
parties’ submissions, oral arguments, and the record in this case, Defendant’s Motion
to Transfer Charges to Family Court is GRANTED.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 3
The charges stem from two separate incidents in November 2019. The first
involved a shooting at the Kingswood Community Center in Wilmington. The
second occurred in Defendant’s residence days later where it is alleged that a firearm
discharged when Defendant tossed it out of his bedroom window. Detectives from
1
Defendant’s date of birth is February 22, 2003.
2
See Indictment, True Bill Filed. No. 29, State of Delaware v. William Ackridge, Crim. I.D. No.
2001004704, D.I. 1 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 10, 2020); Indictment, True Bill Filed, No. 40, State of
Delaware v. William Ackridge, Crim. I.D. No. 1911015539, D.I. 3 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 2,
2020).
3
This recitation is based upon oral argument and evidence presented at the reverse amenability
hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Transfer on November 19, 2020.
2
both Wilmington and New Castle County Police Departments testified as witnesses
for the State regarding both incidents.
Detective McNasby first testified that he observed Defendant and several
young men on an Instagram Messaging video on November 25, 2019. Defendant
was one of two men pointing a weapon into the camera. Since Defendant was on
probation at the time, the officer executed warrants and arrived at his residence later
that evening.
With the assistance of four detectives and a SWAT team, he testified that upon
arriving at the rear of the house, he heard a loud bang followed by another. He then
observed a window screen drop from a second story window followed by a trail of
smoke. He testified that he believed the second bang was the sound of a gun. SWAT
officers in front of the house went into the residence and saw Defendant coming
down the stairs of the residence wearing the same clothes as seen in the Instagram
video. It was later determined that the Defendant’s belongings were located in the
bedroom from where the screen fell and the loud bangs were heard. Other adults
were in the house and firearms were located in Defendant’s sister’s room. In the
yard were a loaded firearm, impact crates and pieces of brass projectile.
Upon further investigation, law enforcement determined that the spent casings
matched others found in a Silver Kia, later determined stolen. Police suspected that
3
the vehicle, found adjacent to Defendant’s residence, was involved in a shooting two
days prior. This incident forms the second set of charges.
Detective Anthony Ford of the Wilmington Police Department testified that
on November 23, he responded to a shots-fired incident at the Kingswood
Community Center where two victims were on the scene and a third had self-
transported to Wilmington Hospital. Surveillance footage shows a silver vehicle
stopped in front of the center. The community center’s camera footage depicts that
the vehicle stops, multiple flashes are seen, then numerous people scatter. The
vehicle had characteristics similar to the stolen Kia. A search of the vehicle yielded
9mm spent casings on the driver side floor. The spent casings, collected and tested
by Delaware State Police, matched the firearm found in Defendant’s yard.
Law enforcement also searched Defendant’s phone and discovered multiple
searches made to the “Delawareonline” website hours after the Kingswood incident.
Text messages on Defendant’s phone show attempts to obtain a firearm. His cell
phone was off at the time of the shooting. His GPS location was unknown at the
time of the shooting because the battery was not charged.
On November 25, 2019, Wilmington Police charged Defendant with four
counts of Reckless Endangering First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the
Commission of a Felony, and Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited. As
to the Kingswood incident, on August 10, 2020, Mr. Ackridge was indicted on a
4
Rule 9 Warrant by a New Castle County Grand jury with 2 counts of Assault First
Degree, 2 counts of Reckless Endangering First Degree, Possession of a Firearm
During the Commission of a Felony, Conspiracy Second Degree, Assault Second
Degree, and Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited.
Detained in New Castle County Detention Center since November 2019, he
asks to transfer his case to Family Court. His sole witness is psychologist Dr. Robin
Belcher-Timme, Psy.D., ABPP. In addition to the two aforementioned witnesses,
the State called Jennifer Wilson on behalf of the Division of Youth Rehabilitative
Services (“YRS”) of the Department of Services for Children, Youth & Their
Families (“DSCYF”). The parties stipulated to the introduction of Dr. Timme’s and
Ms. Wilson’s reports. A reverse amenability hearing took place on November 19,
2019.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The reverse amenability process is meant to identify juveniles charged as
adults who are amenable to the rehabilitative processes of the Family Court. 4 If the
juvenile files a motion to transfer the adult charges, this Court must hold a reverse
amenability hearing and weigh the four factors set forth in 10 Del. C. § 1011(b).5
4
See generally 10 Del. C. §§ 1010-11; see also Hughes v. State, 653 A.2d 241, 249 (Del. 1994)
(quoting Marine v. State, 624 A.2d 1181, 1184 (Del. 1993); Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1209
(Del. 1992)).
5
See, e.g., State v. Harper, 2014 WL 1303012, at *5–7 (Del. Super. Mar. 31, 2014).
5
The Court may consider evidence of: (1) “[t]he nature of the present offense
and the extent and nature of the defendant’s prior record, if any;” 6 (2) “[t]he nature
of past treatment and rehabilitative efforts and the nature of the defendant’s response
thereto, if any;”7 (3) “[w]hether the interests of society and the defendant would be
best served by trial in the Family Court or in the Superior Court[;]”8 and (4) any
“other factors which, in the judgment of the Court are deemed relevant.” 9
III. DISCUSSION
A. Fair Likelihood of Conviction
Before weighing the Section 1011(b) factors, “this Court must preliminarily
determine whether the State has made out a prima facie case against the juvenile.”10
The Court considers “whether there is a fair likelihood that [the defendant] will be
convicted of the crimes charged.”11 Furthermore, “[a] real probability must exist
that a reasonable jury could convict on the totality of the evidence assuming that the
evidence adduced at the reverse amenability hearing stands unrebutted by the
defendant at trial.” 12
6
10 Del. C. § 1011(b)(1).
7
Id. at § 1011(b)(2).
8
Id. at 1011(b)(3).
9
Id. at § 1011(b).
10
Harper, 2014 WL 1303012, at *5 (citing Marine v. State, 624 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Del. 1993)).
11
Harper, 2014 WL 1303012, at *5 (citing Marine v. State, 624 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Del. 1993)).
12
Id.6
Since Defendant is also charged for Possession of a Firearm During
Commission of a Felony, 11 Del. C. § 1447A(f), as amended, requires the Court to
find proof positive or presumption great that the accused used, displayed or
discharged a firearm during the commission of a felony.13 This provision entitles a
juvenile defendant to an evidentiary hearing and allows the firearm charges to be
transferred back to Family Court if the Court does not find proof positive or
presumption great that the juvenile used, displayed, or discharged a firearm during
the commission of a felony.14 The proof positive or presumption great standard is
commonly understood as whether “after [a] full hearing ‘there is good ground to
doubt the truth of the accusation.’”15 If so, then “the Court in its discretion [may]
conclude[] from the evidence that the State does not have a fair likelihood of
convicting the accused of the . . . offense[s].”16
In the Kingswood shooting, the most the State establishes is that a car and a
firearm were near Defendant’s house. The stolen Kia was located adjacent to
Defendant’s residence and ballistic evidence in the vehicle matches a firearm in
13
11 Del. C. § 1447A(f) (“Every person charged under this section over the age of 16 years who,
following an evidentiary hearing where the Superior Court finds proof positive or presumption
great that the accused used, displayed, or discharged a firearm during the commission of a Title
11 or a Title 31 violent felony as set forth in § 4201 (c) of this title, shall be tried as an adult,
notwithstanding any contrary provisions or statutes governing the Family Court or any other
state law. The provisions of this section notwithstanding, the Attorney General may elect to
proceed in Family Court.”).
14
See 11 Del. C. § 1447A(f).
15
See In re Steigler, 250 A.2d 379, 382 (Del. 1969) (internal quotations omitted).
16
Id. at 383 (noting that the proof ‘positive or presumption great’ language is imprecise).
7
Defendant’s yard. Yet, the State fails to place Defendant at the scene, let alone in
the vehicle at the time of the shooting. Witnesses were wholly uncooperative, and
no GPS nor cell phone evidence tracks Defendant to Kingswood. The video footage
does not capture the persons in the vehicle. Therefore, the State cannot establish
that Defendant used, displayed or discharged a firearm during the commission of the
felony assault and reckless endangering charges under 11 Del. C. § 1447A(f).
As for the second set of charges, the State’s evidence also fails to establish
proof positive or presumption great that Defendant used, displayed or discharged a
firearm. The State charges that Defendant recklessly endangered officers when a
firearm discharged after or when he threw it out of a window. Upon arriving at the
back of Defendant’s residence, one of several row homes, the detective testified he
believed one loud bang sounded like a gun. A gun is found in the yard although no
one saw the weapon drop from the room where the screen fell.
Though circumstantial evidence may support a finding that the loaded weapon
was thrown from a second-story room, there is no evidence that Defendant was in
the room from where the sounds came or the screen falls. Other adults were in the
home at the time. More importantly, there is no evidence that Defendant had upon
him a weapon. The Instagram evidence establishes that Defendant displayed
incriminating videos of himself with an alleged weapon earlier that day. But these
8
prior actions cannot extend to implicate him for the events that unfolded at his
residence later that evening.
To prosecute a juvenile in this Court for PFDCF, 11 Del. C. § 1447A(f)
requires that the State establish more than actual or constructive possession. It must
establish that the juvenile displayed, discharged or used the firearm. Accepting the
State’s theory that Defendant attempted to get rid of the weapon, it cannot establish
that he displayed or discharged the weapon, especially since the State alleges that
the firearm must have discharged upon impact after it was tossed. As for whether
Defendant “used” the weapon, use is defined as “to avail oneself of: employ.”17
Here, at best the State can establish that Defendant was trying to abandon the
weapon, not avail himself of it or employ it.
Under 11 Del. C. § 1447A(f), the Court does not find proof positive or
presumption great that Defendant used, displayed or discharged a firearm during the
commission of a felony to maintain jurisdiction of the firearm charge. After
reviewing the totality of the evidence presented, there is not a fair likelihood that
Defendant would be convicted of the charged offenses. Therefore, the State has not
met its burden of demonstrating a prima facie case against Defendant with a fair
17
Use, MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/use (last
visited Jan. 12, 2021).
9
likelihood of conviction at trial. For the remaining charges, the factors also weigh
in favor of transfer to Family Court.
B. Weighing § 1011(b)’s Four Factors
1. Section 1011(b) Factor One: Nature of Present Offense and the Extent
and Nature of Defendant’s Prior Record
The first § 1011(b) factor is two-pronged.18 The first prong of the first factor
inquiries into the nature of the present offenses that, by definition and virtue of being
before this Court, are violent and serious, and weighs against transfer. Yet the
second prong weighs in favor of transfer. With adjudications of delinquency that
include theft of a motor vehicle and resisting arrest, his criminal record began only
two years before he was charged as an adult.
2. Section 1011(b) Factor Two: Nature of Past Treatment and
Defendant’s Response
Extensive medical history from Nemours Children’s Hospital memorializes
Defendant’s diagnosis of traumatic brain injury (“TBI”) from 2012 when Defendant
hit a tree while on a minibike. He suffered a subdural hematoma, right frontal-
temporal bone fractures and trauma services required intensive care treatment.
Dr. Timme’s report outlines the lingering effects therefrom and opines that
“The behavioral disinhibition, emotional reactivity, impulsivity, and other clinical
features of these allegations could be contributed to in no small part by the effects
18
See 10 Del. C. § 1011(b)(1).
10
of a severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), the experience of acute or chronic trauma,
or a combination of the two diagnostic categories.”19
Despite the well-documented medical history, since November 2019,
NCCDC has not provided treatment. The reason offered by the detention center is
that Defendant failed to self-report or request services. The explanation belies logic.
Even if one assumes that someone with a brain injury understood his medical needs,
it is unlikely that a teenage detainee would have the ability to request services to
address them.
The following excerpt from Dr. Timme’s psychological evaluation says it all:
Similarly, despite the availability of medical records documenting the severity of William’s
TBI, and recommending ongoing neuropsychological assessment and treatment, there is no
indication in the records provided to the undersigned that those services were ever offered or
arranged…[and] no indication that he has been identified as potentially having a
Neurocognitive Disorder….
It is premature and clinically inappropriate to declare that treatment and rehabilitative efforts
have been exhausted or even adequately considered, when [Defendant] has never even had an
evaluation completed by the Division of Prevention and Behavioral Health Services
(PBHS)…[T]here has been no systematic means of evaluating William’s clinical and
criminogenic needs, and then assigning an appropriate treatment and programming plan to
meet those needs. This is in line with the clinical recommendation of Dr. Haas, William’s
treating physician in the Department of Rehabilitative Medicine at AI DuPont. In fact, Dr.
Haas stated, “We have been advocating for neuropsych assessment for years.” It is strongly
recommended that William’s clinical needs be thoroughly evaluated through a
neuropsychological assessment, specifically in an effort to identify the extent of what William
will not do versus what he can not do, potentially, and to conceptualize his amenability to
treatment accordingly.”20
19
Report of Robin Belcher-Timme, Psy.D., ABPP, Licensed Psychologist, Report at 9.
20
Report of Dr. Timme at 10-11.
11
The Court accepts Dr. Timme’s opinion that Defendant is amenable to Family
Court services.21 Although he will turn 18 in February, a neuropsychological
assessment as ordered will serve to inform treatment options for Family Court. This
prong weighs in favor of transfer to Family Court.
3. Section 1011(b) Factor Three: Interests of Society and Defendant
In addition to his TBI, Defendant has witnessed friends murdered. Given the
gang-related affiliations and the chronic exposure to trauma brought about by such
activities, it is not surprising that his juvenile record reflects escalating impulsive
and violent behavior. Yet, while detained, Defendant has earned Gold shirt status—
the highest behavioral phase under the CBT Behavioral Model. He has not yet
received Level V programming at YRS. It is in the interest of society and Defendant
to give him the benefit of the same and allow Family Court to place him in age-
appropriate programming. Since the State may seek extended jurisdiction until
Defendant turns twenty-one,22 this factor weighs in favor of transfer. 23
CONCLUSION
The State has not established proof positive or presumption great that
Defendant used, displayed or discharged a firearm during the commission of the
21
Id. at 12.
22
10 Del. C. § 928(a) (“Prior to trial upon Petition of the Attorney General, the State may seek
extended jurisdiction of the Family Court over a juvenile up to age 21.”).
23
The fourth factor of § 1011(b)—other relevant factors the Court deems relevant—has been
sufficiently addressed in the other § 1011(b) factors such that the Court need not explicitly address
this factor in its opinion. 10 Del. C. § 1011(b).
12
felonies for which he stands charged under 11 Del. C. § 1447A(f). Thus, the State
has not established a fair likelihood of conviction. As to the remaining charges, the
enumerated factors under 10 Del. C. § 1011(b) weigh in favor of transfer. In light
of the undisputed record, the Court has ordered a neuropsychological assessment in
the hopes it will reviewed by the Family Court.
Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Charges to Family Court is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Vivian L. Medinilla
Judge Vivian L. Medinilla
oc: Prothonotary
cc: John Barber, Esquire
Jillian Schroeder, Esquire
Dr. Robin Belcher-Timme, Psy.D., ABPP
Jennifer Wilson, Master Family Service Specialist
Jennifer Skinner, Master Family Service Specialist
13