State v. Jones

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE, v. CORNELIUS JONES, Defendant

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Jun 21, 2004

Cr. A. No. 0308007792 (Del. Super. Ct. Jun. 21, 2004)

Opinion

Cr. A. No. 0308007792.

Submitted: March 8, 2004.

Decided: June 21, 2004.

Upon Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Acquittal — DENIED.

ORDER

SUSAN C. DEL PESCO, Judge.

On this 21^st day of June, upon consideration of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, it appears that:

(1) The defendant was charged with Burglary Third Degree and Theft (Felony) related to the theft of computer equipment from the Sigfried Group, on the 7^th floor of 1201 Market Street in Wilmington, on June 14, 2003. A jury trial was held on February 19^th and 20^th, 2004. The defendant was found guilty of Burglary Third Degree, and acquitted of Theft (Felony).

(2) The defendant moves this Court for a judgment of acquittal claiming the jury's verdict is legally inconsistent. The defendant was acquitted of the theft, an element of the crime of burglary, yet he was convicted of the burglary.

(3) Claims of inconsistent verdicts are controlled by the rule of jury lenity.¹ Legally inconsistent verdicts are sustainable if the record contains sufficient evidence to support the conviction and the inconsistency can be explained as a result of jury lenity.² In determining whether the evidence is sufficient, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.³ The Court must then decide whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.⁴

1 Tilden v. State, 513 A.2d 1302, 1307 (Del. 1986).

2 Price v. State, 683 A.2d 60 (Del. 1996).

3 State v. Nickerson, Del. Super., Cr.A. 9704017397, Terry, J. (Dec. 5, 1997) (Order) 1997 WL 855706.

4 Id.

(4) The evidence presented at trial placed the defendant at the scene of the crime at the approximate time the equipment was stolen and showed he was aware of the building's layout and security system. A building security guard who knew the defendant, testified that on the day of the theft saw the defendant in the lobby of 1201 Market Street and questioned him as to his purpose there. The defendant stated he had gotten a job the Sigfried Group and that he was on his way to the 7^th floor for orientation. There was also testimony that it was possible to go from the 7^th floor to the street without being seen by a security camera or a security guard by using either the service elevator or the stairway. Although the case was based upon circumstantial evidence, a jury could have concluded that the evidence proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant entered the business of Sigfried Group to commit a theft. The jury's verdict of guilt on the burglary charge can be explained by jury lenity.

(5) Therefore, the motion for judgment of acquittal is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.