Opinion
ID. No. 0109020973
April 12, 2002
ORDER
Before the Court is the defendant's motion, pursuant to Criminal Rule 29(c), moving for a judgment of acquittal after the discharge of the jury for the reason that there was insufficient evidence to show that defendant displayed or possessed a gun or had a concealed deadly weapon.
The legal standard is clear. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty, a motion for judgment of acquittal may be made or renewed within seven days; the Court may upon such motion set aside the verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal. "In determining a motion for judgment of acquittal, the trial judge must consider the evidence and all legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom, in a light most favorable to the State."
`[T]he relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence [and legitimate inferences] in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' However, the Court is not required to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It must merely inquire as to whether any rational trier of fact could have found that guilt was established.
Super.Ct.Civ.R. 29(c).
Bordley v. State, 1995 WL 466399 at *1 (Del.) (citations omitted).
Skinner v. Brooks, 575 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Del. 1990) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
Likewise, "[i]n reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, th[e] [Delaware Supreme] Court's standard of review is to determine whether any rational trier of fact, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." "Acquittal is appropriate only when the State has presented insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict." Under Delaware case law there appears to be a continuum where, at one end, sparse testimony is insufficient to establish the display or possession of a deadly weapon. At the other end, corroborated testimony will establish the presence of a deadly weapon beyond a reasonable doubt.
Martinez v. State, 2002 WL 272358 at *2 (Del.) (citations omitted).
Bordley, 1995 WL 466399 at *1 (citations omitted).
Insufficient Evidence of Displaying Gun
At the sparse end of the continuum there is Addison v. State. There, the Delaware Supreme Court found insufficient evidence on the element of displaying a deadly weapon where "[n]o witness testified that they either saw a gun or what appeared to be a gun during the commission of [a] robbery." In Addison, a witness testified that based on the defendant's words and posture she "just figured he had a weapon . . . . That testimony alone was insufficient as a matter of law to allow the charge of Robbery in the First Degree to go to the jury."
2001 WL 760852 (Del.).
Id.
Id.
Chapman Case
The case at bar is further along the evidence continuum than Addison because here the victim "testified that [he] either saw a gun or what appeared to be a gun." From the wording in Addison, the instant testimony appears to be sufficient evidence from which the jury could have determined that the display of a gun occurred. Moreover, in this case we also have another witness who saw the shock on the victim's face during the time he alleges a gun was pointed at him. (That witness testified that she could not see a gun because a vehicle blocked her view.)Sufficient Evidence of Possession/Display of Gun
Moving further along the continuum, there are at least three Delaware cases that show that sufficient evidence of a gun may be found on the basis of one witness' testimony when there is some measure of corroboration. First, in Martinez v. State, the testimony is similar to what we have in Chapman. The Martinez prosecution was required to prove that defendant was "in possession of a firearm." However, in that case there was no physical evidence of a gun, nor did the police locate any witnesses to the shooting. The only testimony was from the victim who alone saw the gun. That victim testified that the defendant "pointed a gun at him and shot him." The Delaware Supreme Court found this "testimony alone [was] sufficient to sustain the jury's finding of guilt on the charge of . . . Possession of a Firearm . . . ."
2002 WL 272358.
Id. at *2.
Id. at *3.
Martinez is different from Chapman, however, because the testifying victim in Martinez was really shot and injured, thus corroborating the actual presence of a gun. Here, in Chapman, we have no such corroboration that a gun was actually present during the assault, other than the testimony of the second witness regarding the shock on the victim's face. No weapon was ever recovered.
Next, in Downes v. State, it appears that the State's star witness at trial testified that he and the defendant entered a trailer and the defendant threatened the occupant with a gun. It does not appear that physical evidence of a gun was offered into evidence with respect to the unlawful trailer entry. Defendant was found guilty of the use of a firearm in the unlawful entry. After trial, defendant claimed that the State's star witness lied on the stand, and recanted his former testimony. The Delaware Supreme Court held that the testimony of the victim (a second testifying witness) that the defendant had a gun when he entered the trailer was enough to corroborate the first witness' testimony; therefore, the jury had sufficient evidence to find that defendant entered the dwelling unlawfully with a gun at night.
771 A.2d 289 (Del. 2001).
Finally, in Keith v. State, defendant was accused of stealing suits from Strawbridge Clothier. Defendant denied that he had a gun during the robbery and apparently no physical evidence of a gun was admitted into evidence. A store employee "testified that the perpetrator pointed a gun at her after she followed him out of the store." A customer familiar with guns "testified that he saw the perpetrator with the merchandise outside the store and that he pointed a gun at a woman who ran out of the store." The Delaware Supreme Court held that this testimony of two eyewitnesses was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that defendant possessed a gun during the robbery. Downs and Keith show that the testimony of two witnesses is certainly sufficient to establish the presence of a gun.
2001 WL 433455 (Del.).
Id at *1.
Id.
Id.
Conclusion
In the case at hand, we have testimony from the victim that he saw and was frightened by what appeared to be a gun with a laser scope, corroborated by the testimony of his friend who described the victim's shock but did not see a weapon.
The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and responsible for resolving conflicts in the testimony. The view of the Court is not to be considered except that it must consider the evidence in its entirety and grant the State all reasonable inferences in order to determine if the evidence is sufficient (i.e. could the jury have found that the essential elements were established beyond a reasonable doubt). Unfortunately for Mr. Chapman, the jury resolved the conflict in favor of the State. The victim specifically testified that he saw a gun or what appeared to be a gun as required by Addison. It is also clear that under Martinez, Downes and Keith the testimony of the victim can be sufficient to support the display of a deadly weapon or firearm if there is corroboration of the testimony. Here, the victim's testimony was corroborated by another witness' view of his shocked expression. Consequently, the Court concludes there is sufficient evidence here for the jury to find defendant guilty on all three counts.
Therefore, the defendant's motion for acquittal is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2002.