State v. Casaletto ( 2023 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
v. ) I.D. No. 2201002540
)
JOSEPH CASALETTO, )
Defendant. )
Memorandum Opinions and Orders
On Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal – DENIED
Submitted: April 11, 2023
Decided: May 3, 2023
On Defendant’s Motion for New Trial – DENIED
Submitted: April 11, 2023
Decided: May 3, 2023
Isaac Rank, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney for the State of Delaware
Joseph Hurley, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant Joseph Casaletto
BRENNAN, J.
Joseph Casaletto (“Defendant”) was arrested and ultimately indicted with
Driving Under the Influence stemming from a January 10, 2022, encounter with
Middletown Police in which he was found asleep behind the wheel of his running
Volkswagen Jetta in a controlled turn lane throughout multiple cycles of a traffic
light.1 Defendant was granted leave of this Court to file an out of time Motion to
Suppress, which was heard on Monday, April 3, 2023.2 This motion was denied the
following day and trial began immediately following on Tuesday, April 4, 2023.
Mid-trial, Defendant twice moved for a mistrial, both motions were ultimately
denied. The first motion was denied on its merit, and the second motion was denied
as moot. The jury rendered a verdict on Thursday, April 6, 2023, convicting
Defendant of the sole charge of DUI, finding unanimously that the Defendant’s
blood contained a prohibited alcohol content.3 Following the jury’s verdict, the State
moved to revoke Defendant’s bail, as he now faces a minimum mandatory sentence
of incarceration. The Court granted this motion.
I. POST TRIAL MOTIONS.
Following trial, Defendant filed four (4) motions. A Motion for Reduction of
Bail; Motion for Judgment of Acquittal; Motion for a New Trial; Motion for a
1
State v. Casaletto, ID No. 2201002540, D.I. 1.
2
D.I. 19.
3
D.I. 27.
Certificate of Reasonable Doubt. The latter motion has been withdrawn as
premature by Defendant and will not be considered here. The motion to restore bail
will be addressed in person in the courtroom on May 3, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.
II. Motion for New Trial.
At Defendant’s trial, the State presented both an impairment theory, as well
as a prohibited alcohol content theory of criminal liability before the jury. The jury
was presented with the Body Worn Cameras of two Middletown Police Department
Officers present on scene which showed Defendant asleep behind the wheel with
extremely loud music playing and captured the entire encounter that ensued
following the police successfully awakening Defendant. The State additionally
presented the Body Worn Camera of the arresting Officer when the blood draw
occurred by the Phlebotomist at Middletown Police Department. Finally, the State
presented the jury with both the testimony of Julie Willey, Director of the Delaware
State Police Crime Lab, who testified to the blood kit instructions, the science and
the testing process used by gas chromatograph, and finally the blood alcohol content
of Defendant: .08.4
4
There was no objection at trial to either Ms. Willey’s qualifications or the
Blood Alcohol Test Result being admitted.
When the jury returned its verdict, it noted on the verdict form that it
unanimously found Defendant guilty under the prohibited alcohol content theory of
Driving Under the Influence.
Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 33, the Court may grant a new trial “if
required in the interest of justice.”5 “A new trial is appropriate ‘only if the error
complained of resulted in actual prejudice or so infringed upon defendant’s
fundamental right to a fair trial as to raise a presumption of prejudice.’”6 This Court
has broad discretion in determining whether to grant a new trial in the interest of
justice.7
Defendant moves for a new trial due to a sustained objection regarding his
cross-examination of Julie Willey, the Delaware State Police Crime Lab Director,
who tested his blood. Defense sought to elicit testimony on cross-examination that
questioned the differences between Ms. Willey’s created instructions for the
Delaware State Police Blood Collection Kit and the manufacturer of the blood vile
tube’s instructions.
5
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 33.
6
State v. Bailey, 2020 WL 1316838, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 16, 2020)
(quoting State v. Johnson, 2018 WL 3725748, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. July 25,
2018)).
7
State v. Appiah, 2019 WL 6647806, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 26, 2019)
(citing Johnson, 2018 WL 3725748, at *2).
It has been well-litigated and is well-settled in Delaware Driving Under the
Influence jurisprudence that the Director of the Delaware State Police Crime Lab
has the authority to modify the DUI blood kit instructions, as deemed necessary.8
It is further well-settled that any question regarding those decisions are foundational,
pre-trial issues. The issue before the jury in this case was whether the inversions by
the phlebotomist comported with the blood kit instructions, as raised by Defendant.
It is outside the jury’s purview to decide whether Ms. Willey had the authority to
change the blood kit instructions.9
The Court, after hearing arguments of counsel, considered the Defendant’s
position and the opposition of counsel and allowed limited cross-examination
regarding Ms. Willey’s understanding of the blood kit instructions. Any further
examination would have been – and remains – improper before the jury. There was
no objection to the blood alcohol result coming into evidence at trial, and as noted
above, the issue was raised by Defendant as to whether the inversions satisfied the
blood kit instructions. Thanks to the benefits of body worn camera, the blood draw
and most of the actions of the Phlebotomist were captured on video. The
Phlebotomist can be seen, immediately following the blood draw, inverting the
8
See State v. Bowie, 2022 WL 004005, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 1, 2022);
citing State v. Patel, 2021 WL 754303 (Del. Super. Feb. 26, 2021); see also
State v. Fountain, 2016 WL 4542741 (Del. Super. Aug. 20, 2016).
9
Id.blood tubes. Defense counsel used the video to cross-examine Ms. Willey on
whether in her opinion, the inversions comported with her directions. Whether or
not she had the authority to author the directions is not a proper question before the
jury.
Defendant argues in his motion multiple lines of questioning that would have
been beneficial, should he have been permitted to explore this topic on cross-
examination. However, the fact remains that this topic is not appropriate for a jury
to consider and has already been ruled upon multiple times by this Court. Any
introduction of this issue to the jury will confuse the issues before them and the
Court’s ruling at the time of the initial objection remains the same.
Accordingly, the interests of justice do not require a new trial and Defendant’s
Motion for New Trial is DENIED.
III. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL.
Defendant additionally moves, post-trial, for a judgment of acquittal pursuant
to Superior Court Criminal Rule 29(c). In so moving, Defendant argues that no
reasonable juror could have concluded that the Phlebotomist performed her duties
in complying with the blood kit instructions. In support, Defendant points to the
fact that Body Worn Camera video of the blood draw did not capture all of the
Phlebotomist’s actions. Specifically, Defendant complains that in both the initial
drawing of the sample, as well as during the post-draw mixing and performance of
the required inversions, the camera view is obstructed. Defendant argues that of
what can be seen, shows that the inversions were not performed as required and as a
result, the State cannot meet their burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that the gas chromatography testing of the Defendant’s blood was reliable and
scientifically valid.
Defendant, in his cross-examination of Ms. Willey, performed his own
demonstration of an inversion with a purported blood vile, which was admittedly not
the same type of blood vile used in the collection process, for demonstrative
purposes.10 As Defendant argues in his motion, Ms. Willey, after having viewed
one of defense counsel’s inversions, agreed that what counsel had done before her
was not a complete inversion. Ms. Willey, however, and as mentioned above, was
shown the video of the Phlebotomist’s actions and testified they comported with the
blood kit instructions.
10
It is worthy to note that during closing arguments of counsel, defense
counsel for the first time presented in front of the jury a purported collection
vile, of the same type shown to Ms. Willey, but this time filled with tomato
juice. Without objection from the State, counsel then proceeded to invert the
blood tube and pointed out how the tomato juice remained on the glass vile
and argued that this shows the tube in question was not properly mixed with
the contained preservatives. This argument will not be considered by the
Court in this motion, as it introduced a fact not in evidence at that was not
placed in evidence, as there was no testimony regarding the qualities of
tomato juice as it compares to blood and was an improper display before the
jury.
Defendant further supports his motion by arguing that if the blood was not
properly mixed with the preservative, as was argued in the Motion for New Trial,
the State cannot meet its burden of proof. The State opposes this motion and argues
that sufficient evidence was set forth before the jury to support its conclusion of
guilt.
In a motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Superior Court Criminal
Rule 29(c), the defendant has the burden to show that no rational trier of fact, while
viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all of the elements of the crime
alleged.11 It is within the sole province of the jury to “determine witness credibility,
resolve conflicts in testimony and draw any inferences from the proven facts.
Irreconcilable conflicts will be found on in a rare case.”12
This is not that rare case. While obstructed, there was video evidence of the
contested inversions presented. The State was not required to present the testimony
of the Phlebotomist in question, but the State presented evidence of the blood draw,
as well as presented testimony of the Officer present for the blood draw. Extensive
argument was made by counsel regarding the sufficiency of the draw and the
subsequent mixing of the blood with the preservatives and in looking at the facts in
11
State v. Pittaway, 2017 WL 5624302 at *1, Order, Johnston, J. Nov. 2, 2017
(Super. Ct.).
12
Id.the light most favorable to the State, the non-moving party, sufficient evidence was
presented for a rational fact finder to conclude the State had met their burden of
proof.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 2023.
Danielle J. Brennan, Judge
Original to Prothonotary
cc: Issac A. Rank, Deputy Attorney General
Joe Hurley, Esquire