Brown v. State, 117 A.3d 568

Background

Police investigating a drug ring run by Galen Brooks obtained a wiretap on Brooks’ number and conducted surveillance. Wiretaps captured calls arranging a cocaine purchase; Brown arrived at Brooks’ house shortly thereafter and left minutes later.
Sergeant Skinner followed and stopped Brown’s vehicle, arrested him, and found multiple bags of cocaine on his person; field reports showed ~21.2 grams total. Brown admitted possessing an ounce (~28 g) and intending to sell.
OCME chemist Patricia Phillips tested the seized drugs and reported ~23.23 grams; small discrepancies existed among officer reports, OCME, and later independent testing. Phillips testified at trial; chain-of-custody witnesses (seizing and packaging officers and the chemist) testified.
Brown was tried separately, convicted on multiple counts including Tier 4 drug dealing (≥20 g), and sentenced as a habitual offender to life on key counts plus additional terms.
After oral argument on direct appeal, it emerged that OCME courier James Woodson and later Phillips faced allegations of evidence mishandling and misconduct; the Supreme Court remanded for a new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence. Superior Court denied the motion; independent retesting (NMS Labs) confirmed cocaine and total weight (~22.08 g).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of wiretap recordings (probable cause to intercept)	Brown: wiretap overbroad; police only had mere suspicion Brown would be the buyer	State: magistrate had probable cause re Brooks; affidavit showed patterns to identify Brooks’ changing numbers and that interception would yield evidence	Court: Affidavit provided sufficient probable cause; wiretap evidence admissible
Probable cause for stop/arrest (fruit of the poisonous tree)	Brown: stop/arrest lacked probable cause; police only speculated he was the unknown caller	State: totality of circumstances — wiretap arranging a deal, timing of Brown’s arrival/departure, prior knowledge eliminating Price — gave a fair probability Brown bought and still possessed drugs	Court: Stop/arrest reasonable; probable cause existed; seized drugs admissible
Chain of custody / admissibility of cocaine evidence	Brown: discrepancies in number, type (powder vs. crack), and weight between police reports and OCME suggest tampering/misidentification	State: seizing, packaging, and forensic witnesses testified; discrepancies explained (appearance, weighing method); admission rests on reasonable probability evidence not tampered with	Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible because reasonable probability of integrity existed; breaks go to weight, not admissibility
New trial based on OCME misconduct (newly discovered evidence)	Brown: disclosures about Woodson and Phillips show probable adulteration/theft and could have changed the verdict	State: misconduct concerned stealing/sloppiness, not planting; independent retest confirmed cocaine >20 g; other overwhelming evidence (wiretaps, Brown’s admission)	Court: Superior Court did not abuse discretion denying new trial — new evidence unlikely to have changed result

Key Cases Cited

State v. Maxwell, 624 A.2d 926 (Del. 1993) (probable cause to support wiretap evaluated under totality of circumstances)
Maulo v. State, 27 A.3d 551 (Del. 2011) (probable cause standard for arrest does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Jarvis v. State, 600 A.2d 38 (Del. 1991) (probable cause defined as fair probability defendant committed crime)
Miller v. State, 4 A.3d 371 (Del. 2010) (probable cause assessed from objectively reasonable officer’s perspective)
Stafford v. State, 59 A.3d 1223 (Del. 2012) (arrest probable cause review and admissibility of search incident to arrest)
McNair v. State, 990 A.2d 398 (Del. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151 (Del. 1987) (chain-of-custody requires reasonable probability evidence not tampered with)