State v. Casaletto ( 2023 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
v. ) I.D. No. 2201002540
)
JOSEPH CASALETTO, )
Defendant. )
Order
On Defendant’s Motion for Certificate of Reasonable Doubt – DENIED
Submitted: May 3, 2023
Decided: May 9, 2023
Isaac Rank, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney for the State of Delaware
Joseph Hurley, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant Joseph Casaletto
BRENNAN, J.
1
Joseph Casaletto (hereinafter “Defendant”) was arrested and ultimately
indicted for Driving Under the Influence (hereinafter “DUI”) 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 – based upon a
reference to an odor of marijuana that was played before the jury from an officer’s
Body Worn Camera – 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, Defendant filed four (4) motions: Motion for
Reinstatement of Bail; Motion for Judgment of Acquittal; Motion for a New Trial
and the instant Motion for a Certificate of Reasonable Doubt. The former three
motions have been previously addressed, as Defendant had withdrawn the instant
1
State v. Casaletto, ID No. 2201002540, D.I. 1.
2
D.I. 19.
3
D.I. 27.
2
motion as premature. On May 3, 2023, all pending motions were denied and
Defendant was sentenced to 2 years at Level V incarceration, suspended after the
minimum-mandatory 90 days, for one (1) year at Level III probation and related
conditions. As such, the Motion for Certificate of Reasonable Doubt is now ripe for
decision and was orally represented.4 The State opposes Defendant’s motion.
The legal authority to issue a Certificate of Reasonable Doubt is found in Title
11, Section 4502 of the Delaware Code. This section, in pertinent part, provides:
No writ of error or writ of certiorari issuing from the Supreme Court in
any criminal cause shall operate as a stay of execution of the sentence
of the trial court unless such writ of error or writ of certiorari be sued
out within 30 days from the date of final judgment in the court below,
and unless the plaintiff in error obtains from the trial court (or, if the
trial court refuses, then from 1 of the Justices of the Supreme Court) a
certificate that there is reasonable ground to believe that there is error
in the record which might require a reversal of the judgment below, or
that the record presents an important question of substantive law which
ought to be decided by the Supreme Court, and unless the plaintiff in
error furnishes bond to the State, with surety to be approved and in an
amount to be fixed by 1 of the Justices of the Supreme Court,
conditioned as prescribed by rule of court.5
In order to obtain a Certificate of Reasonable Doubt, a defendant has
the burden to either show, “a reasonable ground to believe that there is error
which might require a reversal, or that there is an important question of
4
D.I. 38.
5
11 Del. C.§ 4502.
3
substantive law which should be decided by the Supreme Court.”6 This burden
extends to showing “an error of record that might require reversal or an
important question of law.”7
Defendant argues three errors of law in support of his application: 1)
this Court’s denial of his motion to suppress; 2) the prosecutor’s failure to
redact a portion of the Body Worn Camera which mentions the odor of
marijuana in Defendant’s vehicle upon post-arrest and was played before the
jury; and 3) the Court’s ruling prohibiting cross-examination of Julie Willey,
the Delaware State Police Crime Lab Director, regarding the differences
between the blood tube manufacturer’s instructions for blood collection
versus the DUI Blood Collection Kit instructions, which Willey authored. As
couched, Defendant’s arguments of error fall under the “error of record”
avenue for relief.
In order for Defendant to be successful, he must show that any one of
these alleged errors were “clear, flagrant, manifest, obvious or plain from the
record.”8 Defendant cannot make such a showing here.
6
State v. Green, 2019 WL 6250437, *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 21, 2019), citing
Bailey v. State, 352 A.2d 411, 413 (Del. 1976).
7
Id.8
Bailey v. State, 354 A.2D at 752.
4
With respect to the motion to suppress, the Court articulated its findings
at the time of the ruling. Defense has not presented any new arguments in the
instant motion that were not previously presented, nor has he met his burden
to show the Court made an error of law in its previous ruling or that any
alleged error was clear, flagrant, manifest, obvious or plain from the record.
Defendant’s application has re-argued his original position in the suppression
hearing. The factual evidence deduced at the suppression hearing supports
the Court’s finding, and no further evidence of an abuse of this Court’s
discretion has been provided, therefore the first basis for the instant motion is
without merit.
Defendant next argues that the failure of the Prosecutor to redact a
statement referencing an odor of marijuana in Defendant’s vehicle on the
Body Worn Camera, which was played before the jury warrants the requested
relief. This issue was the subject of Defendant’s initial mistrial application
and prior to ruling, much was explored and the record was developed with
respect to how the statement came to remain on the recording. The Court
inquired into all allegations made by Defendant regarding trial preparation
and the understandings of the parties. In fact, Defendant requested the Court
obtain the draft transcript of the suppression hearing, which it did, to ascertain
whether it contained any evidence of any such agreement to remove any
5
discussion regarding marijuana on the record; it did not. There appear to be
many reasons for this lack of communication between the parties which
resulted in this evidence before the jury, none of which are necessary to be
expanded on at this time, but all of which were developed on the trial record
and touched upon in the Court’s oral ruling denying the mistrial application.9
Defendant’s instant motion fails to meet his burden to show that the conduct
of the Prosecutor, or the subsequent denial of the mistrial application was an
error so “clear, flagrant, manifest, obvious or plain from the record” that it
warrants the relief sought here.10
With respect to Defendant’s final argument regarding the limitation on
his cross-examination of Ms. Willey, this, too, was re-addressed by the Court
in its most recent decision denying Defendant’s Motion for New Trial. While
here, Defendant cites to a line of case law discussing the confrontation clause
for the first time in support of his argument, the Court notes that at no point
in this case either pre or mid-trial were the foundational qualifications of Ms.
Willey’s expertise challenged. Defendant additionally cites cases in support
of the well-established importance of relevant cross-examination of expert
9
As noted at the time of the ruling, a prompt curative instruction was read, the
reference was minimal, there were no charges related to marijuana and the
interest of justice did not require the extraordinary remedy of a mistrial.
10
Id.6
witnesses. As the Court has previously ruled, based upon legal precedent of
this very Court, the proffered cross-examination was not relevant here and any
minimal relevance would be outweighed by the potential for confusion of the
jury.11 There is nothing raised in Defendant’s instant motion that shows a
“clear, flagrant, manifest, obvious or plain from the record” error that requires
the requested relief.
Accordingly, the Motion for Certificate of Reasonable Doubt is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2023.
Danielle J. Brennan, Judge
Original to Prothonotary
cc: Isaac A. Rank, Deputy Attorney General
Joe Hurley, Esquire
11
State v. Bowie, 2022 WL 004005, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 1, 2022).
7