Ayala v. State, 204 A.3d 829

July 2015: Wilmington police stopped Javier Ayala (suspended license) and found 50 individually packaged suspected heroin bags in his van; a subsequent search of his home (warrant) uncovered 1,236 more bags and a .22-caliber pistol. Ayala admitted ownership and intent to sell.
DFS chemist Ashley Wang performed hypergeometric testing on 62 of the 1,286 bags and testified all sampled bags contained heroin; she extrapolated that at least 90% of the seizure contained heroin at a 95% confidence level and estimated net weight ≈ 15 grams.
Ayala was convicted in separate trials of drug, firearm, traffic, and child-endangering/person-prohibited offenses; State moved to declare him a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214 based on four prior felonies; Superior Court granted and imposed a mandatory minimum sentence.
On appeal Ayala raised two main challenges: (1) sufficiency of foundation for admission of Wang’s hypergeometric test results because she could not recall exactly how she randomly sampled; (2) whether Delaware’s 2011 Ned Carpenter Act recategorization meant three of his predicate convictions no longer qualified as felonies for habitual-offender enhancement.
Superior Court admitted Wang’s testimony over Ayala’s objection and declared Ayala a habitual offender; the Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion and the habitual-offender issue de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ayala)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admissibility of hypergeometric testing results	Wang couldn’t remember how she randomly selected samples; lacking a proper foundation, her extrapolation (identity and total weight) is unreliable and inadmissible	Wang followed her routine procedures; judge could infer she followed them; showing of population homogeneity reduced reliance on precise random-selection method; weaknesses go to weight not admissibility	Court affirmed admission: memory lapse and non‑standard sampling method did not render testimony inadmissible; reliability (not infallibility) satisfied and challenges go to weight for the jury
Habitual-offender designation under 11 Del. C. § 4214	Some predicate offenses (possession near park; maintaining a dwelling) were recodified/eliminated by the 2011 Ned Carpenter Act and thus are no longer felonies at sentencing, so they should not count toward § 4214’s three‑felony requirement	Predicate convictions were felonies when they occurred; § 4214 applies because defendant had been convicted three times of felonies prior to the triggering conviction	Court held § 4214 applies: Ayala indisputably had three prior felony convictions when they were entered, so habitual‑offender enhancement was proper; § 4215A inapposite

Fensterer v. State, 509 A.2d 1106 (Del. 1986) (expert’s inability to identify which observations formed basis of opinion can render testimony inadmissible)
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir.) (trial judge gatekeeping role: expert grounds need not be perfect)
M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513 (Del. 1999) (trial judge as gatekeeper on admissibility; abuse of discretion standard)
Price v. Blood Bank of Delaware, Inc., 790 A.2d 1203 (Del. 2002) (preponderance required to establish admissibility; reliability over certainty)
Butcher v. State, 171 A.3d 537 (Del. 2017) (discussion of statutory interpretation and sentencing definitions; cited for related statutory-postchange reasoning)