State v. Ginegaw

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE v. SCOTT GINEGAW, Defendant

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Mar 2, 2011

DEF. ID No. 1009021947 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2011)

Opinion

DEF. ID No. 1009021947.

March 2, 2011.

ORDER

JOSEPH R. SLIGHTS, III, Judge

On this 2nd day of March, 2011, upon consideration of the State's Motion for Reconsideration, the Defendant's Response to said motion, the transcript of the hearing and the record in this case, it appears that:

1) The Court referred a Motion for Bill of Particulars to Superior Court Commissioner Mark S. Vavala pursuant to 10 Del.C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Rule 62 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law.

2) The Commissioner entered an order granting the defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars on January 31, 2011 upon concluding that under the particular circumstances presented in this case — where the discovery did not provide any indication regarding the nature of the force or threat of force utilized by the defendant to justify a charge of Robbery 2^nd Degree — it was reasonable to require the State to supply a limited Bill of Particulars to address that issue.¹

1 The Court notes that, in instances where discovery or other matters in the record ( e.g. a preliminary hearing transcript) reveal a factual element of a charge, a bill of particulars may not be necessary. See State v. Goldborough, 2000 WL 706790 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 10, 2010). In other words, the mere fact that the indictment of a Robbery 2^nd charge alleges only that the defendant used or threatened the immediate use of force, standing alone, would not require that the indictment be supplemented by a bill of particulars.

NOW THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for reasons stated on the record by the Commissioner on January 31, 2011, The State's Motion for Reconsideration of Commissioner's Order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.