Opinion
Docket No. 242, 1998.
March 15, 1999.
Appeal from the Superior Court, New Castle County, CrA 97-05-1620, 1624-1627 and 97-05-0255-0257.
AFFIRMED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
JAMES G. BROWN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 242, 1998. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: February 17, 1999. Decided: March 15, 1999.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, Cr.A. Nos. 97-05-1620, 1624 through 1627 and 97-05-0255 through 0257.
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, James G. Brown ("Brown"), appeals from his conviction in the Superior Court on charges of first degree assault, second degree assault, and related weapons and drug offenses. Brown contends that the jury's verdict on the assault charges was not supported by sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions and that in the absence of conviction on the underlying felonies, the weapons charge cannot be legally supported. He also advances a claim of plain error in the trial court's failure to declare a mistrial when the jury foreperson expressed concern about announcing the verdict.
(2) Upon review of the record, we are satisfied that there was ample evidence in this case to support the jury's verdict that the defendant intentionally shot two individuals with a handgun which was recovered from his person when he was captured after fleeing the scene of the crime.
(3) With respect to the claim of mistrial involving the reluctant juror, the failure to raise a contemporaneous objection to action of the trial court in permitting the juror to continue, precludes consideration of the claim except as a matter of plain error. There is no indication in this record that the misgivings expressed by the foreperson affected her ability to participate with her fellow jurors in rendering the verdict. The trial court's treatment of the problem, with the apparent acquiescence of counsel, did not affect the fairness or integrity of the trial process. Wainwright v. State, Del. Supr., 504 A.2d 1096, 1100, cert. denied, 497 U.S. 869 (1986).
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