Opinion
ID # 0109014756
Date Submitted: June 28, 2002
Date Decided: July 26, 2002
UPON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL GRANTED.
Ralph David Wilkinson, IV, Esq., Assistant Public Defender, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant.
Allison Peters, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.
ORDER
On this 26th day of July 200 2, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Reconsider a Judgment of Aquittal and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
(1) Defendant had a jury trial on May 23-24, 2002 on the charges of Possession with Intent to Deliver Heroin and Possession of a Controlled Substance within 1000 Feet of a School. At the close of the State's evidence, Defendant set forth a Motion for Acquittal, which the Court denied. Following the trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of both charges.
(2) Defendant now moves this Court to reconsider its Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on all counts. Defendant contends this motion should be granted due to the State's witness' irreconcilable testimony. The State combats that the issues of witness credibility and resolving conflicts in testimony should be left to the province of the jury.
(3) The court has the discretion to grant a motion of acquittal when there is an irreconcilable difference in the State's case. Wintjen v. State, 398 A.2d 780 (1979). Delaware courts have held that "an `irreconcilable conflict' exists only where the State's case involves inconsistencies between the testimony of different State witnesses." Ward v. State, No. 137, 1 990, 199 1 WL 181476, at * 3 (Del. Sept. 9, 1991); Corbin v. State, No. 389, 1990, 1991 WL 316965, at *3 (Del. Feb. 19, 1992). It is true that the jury is to judge witness credibility and resolve conflicts in testimony, however the court must ensure that a rational trier of fact could find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the court should grant a motion for judgment of acquittal when the state has presented insufficient evidence to sustain a verdict. State v. Garnett, No. IK95-12-0289, 1998 WL 442706 (Del.Super. May 06, 1998). Here, the irreconcilable differences in the State's witnesses' testimony prevents such a finding. Detective Richard Armorer ("Armorer") was the only witness who claimed he actually saw Defendant possess the Heroin. His testimony was in complete contradiction to the arresting officer, Corporal Thomas Harris ("Harris").
(4) Armorer was on duty performing surveillance around the area of the 2700 block of North Claymont Street. Armorer testified that Defendant first came into view with two unknown men. Armorer then observed an older man give money to Defendant in exchange for an unknown item from inside Defendant's sweatshirt. Believing a drug transaction occurred, Armorer called assisting units to arrest Defendant. Armorer testified that as uniformed officers exited the marked police car and approached Defendant, Defendant immediately fled on foot. He further stated that the two unknown men with Defendant simply walked away. Armorer testified that as Defendant fled on foot he threw a brown or black plastic shopping bag aside. Armorer stated that he continued to watch the bag. Armorer then testifies that Harris, the second unit to respond, is sent directly to the plastic bag. Armorer testified that while Harris was at the bag, Defendant was pursued by the other officers and taken into custody in the courtyard. On cross examination Armorer testified that he was unable to actually see Defendant apprehended because the arrest took place out of his line of sight.
(5) Harris testified that he responded to Armorer's request to locate a subject and a resident on the northeast corner of 27th and Claymont streets. Once he arrived on the scene Harris observed people matching the descriptions he heard on the police radio from Armorer standing between a courtyard to two adjoining buildings. When Harris pulled up to the corner he stopped Defendant and the two other suspects, told them the reason for the stop and brought them over to the police car. Harris testified that the men seemed surprised that he was there. Contrary to Armorer, Harris testified that he was the first unit to respond to the area and was the officer who physically took Defendant in to custody. After bringing Defendant to the police car, Harris then followed Armorer's directions to the dropped brown or black plastic shopping bag, which Harris estimated was about ten feet from where he apprehended Defendant. Later Heroin was found in the bag that Harris found.
(6) The testimony of these two officers create an irreconcilable conflict. Armorer testified that Defendant flees the scene on the arrival of the first police car. Harris testified that he was the first police car to arrive at the scene, sees Defendant who looks surprised and brings him over to the car. Armorer testified that an other unit arrests Defendant while Harris finds the discarded plastic bag. Harris testified that he apprehended Defendant and then followed Armorer's directions to the plastic bag. Armorer testified that as Defendant fled, the other two unknown males simply walked away. Harris testified that when he first arrived he saw Defendant with at least one other suspect and possibly two. Armorer testified that he only relayed one description of a suspect over the police radio. Harris testified that he heard descriptions of at least two suspects and possibly three. There was no testimony from Armorer's alleged first unit who arrived, chased Defendant and arrested him.
(7) Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in favor of the State, and with deference to the jury's findings, this Court finds insufficient evidence to support the jury's determination.
For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. The convictions are hereby vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.