Opinion
Docket No. 296, 1998.
March 15, 1999.
Appeal from Superior Court, Sussex County, CrA S97-1 1-0328.
AFFIRMED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
TYSHI O. HAZZARD, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 296, 1998. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: March 9, 1999. Decided: March 15, 1999.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County, Cr.A. No. S97-11-0328.
Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 15th day of March, 1999 upon consideration of the briefs of the parties it appears to the Court as follows:
(1) The appellant, Tyshi O. Hazzard ("Hazzard"), appeals from his conviction in the Superior Court for delivery of cocaine. He asserts that the Superior Court erred in precluding his presentation of evidence concerning the misidentification of the defendant at the time of his arrest.
(2) Hazzard was convicted primarily on the testimony of an undercover State police officer who purchased drugs from Hazzard on October 22, 1997. The officer's testimony was based upon a prior photographic view of Hazzard. The officer made a positive identification of Hazzard at trial.
(3) Hazzard sought to introduce testimony that other police officers seeking to arrest Hazzard, a month after the sale also using a copy of the photograph of the defendant, mistook his brother for Hazzard. The trial court declined to permit this testimony as irrelevant on the question of the purchasing officer's identification and because it would create a "trial within a trial" leading to jury confusion.
(4) The admission of the testimony in question was addressed to the discretion of the trial court. This Court will reverse the exercise of that discretion only if there is a demonstration of abuse. Longfellow v. State, Del. Supr., 688 A.2d 1370, 1372, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 2524 (1997). We conclude that the trial judge was correct in concluding in this case that the presentation of evidence concerning a mistake in identification by other police officers a month after the sale in question would create a "trial within a trial" and possibly lead to jury confusion. Hoey v. State, Del. Supr., 689 A.2d 1177, 1180 (1997). Moreover, given the positive identification of the police officer at trial, the subsequent misidentification was, at best, of marginal relevance. We find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court's ruling and accordingly affirm.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joseph T. Walsh, Justice