The case involved Juan Lamberty, a Tier II sex offender designated as homeless under Delaware's Sex Offender Registration Statute, who was charged with Failure to Properly Report after missing a required 30-day registration. Lamberty moved to dismiss, arguing that the statute's more frequent registration requirement for homeless offenders violated the Equal Protection Clause and that provisions allowing the State Police Superintendent to designate reporting locations amounted to an improper delegation of legislative power. The Superior Court denied the motion, and Lamberty was convicted. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the classification was rationally related to the legitimate state interest in supervising offenders and that the delegation was lawful because the statute required reasonable regulations rather than granting unfettered discretion.
The case involved Eric Holmes appealing the Superior Court's denial of his motion for acquittal on a charge of knowingly possessing a firearm under Delaware law. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling after reviewing the briefs and record. The court determined that the State had presented sufficient evidence such that a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find Holmes guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case involved Freddie Flonnory's appeal from his Superior Court conviction for felony driving under the influence, specifically challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless blood draw after a traffic stop. Flonnory argued that Delaware's implied consent statute did not exempt the blood draw from the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement and that the trial court failed to assess whether his consent was voluntary under a totality of the circumstances test. The Delaware Supreme Court held that a blood draw is an invasive search requiring a warrant or valid exception, and that when the State relies on consent, courts must apply a Fourth Amendment totality of the circumstances analysis rather than relying solely on the implied consent statute. Because the Superior Court did not conduct that analysis, the court remanded the case for further proceedings without resolving whether the implied consent statute itself satisfies constitutional requirements.
This case was an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court by Samuel Tanner from a ruling of the Family Court in a dispute with Theresa Allen. After reviewing the parties' briefs, the Supreme Court concluded that the Family Court's April 28, 2014 order was correctly decided. The court therefore affirmed the Family Court's judgment in full, adopting the lower court's reasoning without elaboration. The decision resolved the appeal in favor of the appellee.
Orlando Ingram appealed his Superior Court convictions for two counts of first-degree robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, second-degree conspiracy, and resisting arrest stemming from an armed robbery of a Family Dollar store in Dover and his later arrest. Ingram challenged the admission of a handgun and a cigarette pack bearing his thumbprint as evidence, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence linking him to the robbery. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the cigarette pack was properly authenticated and relevant forensic evidence while the gun had a sufficient circumstantial connection to the robbery and the defendant; any questions about the items' connection went to the weight of the evidence rather than admissibility. The court also found the overall trial evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the search of the apartment was valid based on the arrest warrant and consent.
The case involved Vincent J. Branson appealing a Court of Chancery decision regarding the estate of Dorothea Branson, where David Branson served as executor. The lower court ruled that Vincent lacked standing to file exceptions in the estate matter and assessed attorney's fees against him. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on the basis of the Court of Chancery's bench ruling and letter opinion, concluding that the appellant was without standing to file exceptions in the estate proceeding.