Opinion
No. 494, 2000
Submitted: October 16, 2001
Decided: October 31, 2001
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County. C.A. No. 00-01-0003668.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices (constituting the Court en Banc).
ORDER
This 31st day of October, 2001, it appears to the Court that:
1) The defendant-appellant, Shelly Dehorty, has appealed from the final judgments that were entered by the Kent County Superior Court, following her convictions and sentences for: three counts of Assault in the Second Degree in violation of the provisions of 11 Del. C. § 612(a)(1), as lesser-included offenses of Assault in the First Degree; leaving the scene of an injury accident in violation of the provisions of 21 Del. C. § 4202(a); failure to report an injury accident in violation of the provisions of 21 Del. C. § 4203(a)(1); driving during suspension or revocation of a license in violation of the provisions of 21 Del. C. § 2756(a); no proof of insurance in violation of the provisions of 21 Del. C. § 2118(p); improper passing in violation of the provisions of 21 Del. C. § 4119(a)(2); Reckless Driving in violation of the provisions of 21 Del. C. § 4175(a); and speeding in violation of the provisions of 21 Del. C. § 4169(a)(1)(d).
2) Dehorty's convictions all related to events that occurred on December 24, 1999. Vernon Yoder, his older brother, Andy Yoder, Jr., and his sister, Katie Yoder, were returning home at approximately 1:35 a.m. in a horse and buggy. Vernon was driving and his siblings were passengers. Vernon was in the process of making a left-hand turn from Brittany Lane to Yoder Drive when the buggy was struck in the left-hand lane by a 1994 Ford Ranger truck driven by Dehorty.
3) During the course of the trial in these criminal proceedings, Dehorty argued that the provisions of 11 Del. C. § 263 were relevant to the Superior Court's assessment of her legal culpability. The title of Section 263 is "Reckless or negligent causation; different result from that expected or overlooked." When the Superior Court issued its final decision, it did not mention Section 263.
4) While Dehorty's appeal was pending, this Court issued an opinion in Bullock v. State, Del. Supr., 775 A.2d 1043 (2001). In Bullock, this Court examined the provisions of Section 263 in the context of instructions to a jury. Although Dehorty's case was not a jury trial, we have no doubt that the Superior Court would have commented upon this Court's opinion in Bullock, if it had been decided before the decision in Dehorty's case was issued.
5) In this appeal, the parties have argued, respectively, that Bullock is either applicable to or distinguishable from the facts presented at Dehorty's trial. We have concluded that this matter should be remanded for the parties to make their arguments to the Superior Court and then have the Superior Court specifically address the Section 263 issue by either applying or distinguishing our holding in Bullock.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Superior Court. The Superior Court is directed to make findings of facts and conclusions of law regarding the applicability, if any, of 11 Del. C. § 263 and this Court's holding in Bullock to the facts that were established at Dehorty's trial. Jurisdiction is retained. The Superior Court's report on remand shall be filed with this Court within sixty days from the date of this Order. Supr. Ct. R. 19(c).