Opinion
Case ID: 1404011214
08-31-2015
LAKEMIA SMITH, Defendant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE.
cc: Prothonotary (Criminal) Kathryn S. Keller, Deputy Attorney General Theopalis K. Gregory, Sr., Esquire
ORDER
Upon Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas - AFFIRMED.
1. Defendant was found guilty on October 29, 2014 after a non-jury trial. This timely appeal questions whether Defendant was found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt." Although the trial court, when announcing the verdict, said it was "convinced," it did not say aloud that it was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Although there was confusion and controversy over whether this appeal was timely, the court has determined that it was.
Smith v. State, ID# 1404011214 (Del. Super. Jan. 28, 2015) (ORDER).
3. Defendant was charged by information in the Court of Common Pleas with one count of intentional abuse, exploitation, or mistreatment of an infirm adult, in violation of Title 31, Section 3913(a) of the Delaware Code. Largely through circumstantial evidence, the State proved Defendant failed to clean a nursing home resident who, due to dementia, was unable to care for himself.
4. After closing arguments, including Defendant's sur-rebuttal, the trial court announced:
These are unfortunate type cases with emotion involved and concern. The evidence in this case is not as clear cut as one would like it to be. But there is a continuity. If the side issues are put aside, there is a continuity that comes through. And putting it all together, it's hard for the Court not to conclude that there was a failure to live up to the standard that should have been lived up to.As to the court's reference to "the burden that [the State] must [carry] here," defense counsel specifically argued: "The State has the burden of proof to prove this matter beyond a reasonable doubt, not some inherent neglect or given the circumstances through some mystical assessment of the facts that she did this."
The Statute speaks of knowingly or recklessly. You preside[sic] recklessly, knowingly; could probably be the touchstone here. And based on the evidence that was articulated by at least one of the witnesses here, I'm convinced that the State has carried the burden that it must here. And the Defendant will be adjudged guilty.
5. If there were room to question whether Defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there are several reasons why it is indisputable that she was. First, there was evidence from which the trial court could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The only reasonable explanation for the victim's soiled condition was that Defendant failed to clean him before going off duty. Defendant all but admitted as much in her testimony. Second, this court takes notice that the presiding judge has been deciding non-jury criminal trials for over 40 years. The notion that he does not know the standard of review for a criminal trial borders on frivolous. Third, as mentioned, the standard of review was argued to the trial court, and the trial court referenced it. Finally, and most importantly, when the trial court imposed its sentence, it stated:
State v. Smith, ID# 1404011214, at 118 (Del. Com. Pl. Oct. 29, 2014) (TRANSCRIPT): "I basically was saying that my last round is at 6 o'clock. So from 6:00 to 7:30[,] I could not tell you what this client - - or what condition this client was in . . ."; Id. at 123: "As far as medically being - - checking the client and making sure that he doesn't have any fecal matter and he's unsoiled, that was my job to check him every hour . . . . as far as behaviorally, it was my job to deal with the situation as it presented itself . . . . He possibly could have relieved himself [while sleeping] but it's my responsibility to check him every hour."
Id. at 138: "I'm convinced that the State has carried the burden that it must here." --------
And hearing what I heard here today, in all candor[,] I do think we fell below the standard in this case. I really do, and that's why I found as I did. If I had doubts on that, I would not have found as I did.Thus, albeit during sentencing, the trial court made clear, aloud, that its verdict was beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this court rejects Defendant's argument that the trial court could not, directly or indirectly, clarify its verdict when imposing its sentence.
For the foregoing reasons, the October 29, 2014 verdict in the Court of Common Pleas is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Fred S. Silverman
Judge cc: Prothonotary (Criminal)
Kathryn S. Keller, Deputy Attorney General
Theopalis K. Gregory, Sr., Esquire