Clay v. State
164 A.3d 907
| Del. | 2017Background
- On August 9, 2014, a Dollar General employee was robbed by a man wearing a black “Security” shirt and displaying a handgun; surveillance showed Booker Land in the office committing the robbery while Christopher Clay remained near the front of the store and left seconds after Land.
- Police shortly thereafter observed Clay, Land, and a third man walking together; Clay fled when approached, made a throwing motion while being chased, and officers later recovered a handgun near where he made that motion; Clay had bundled cash on his person.
- A joint indictment charged Clay with first‑degree robbery, two PFDCF counts, conspiracy (2nd degree), tampering with physical evidence, resisting arrest, and related offenses; some counts were later severed and the joint trial proceeded with several charges against Clay.
- A jury convicted Clay of Robbery in the First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Tampering with Physical Evidence, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, and Resisting Arrest; he received a lengthy prison term and appealed; the State cross‑appealed discovery rulings.
- The Supreme Court affirmed convictions except it reversed the tampering conviction (finding insufficient proof of successful suppression) and held the Superior Court erred in ordering production of a DOJ intake sheet and prosecutor’s notes under Rule 26.2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Clay) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to sever joint trial | Joint trial appropriate; evidence against Clay admissible and separable | Joint trial prejudiced Clay; insufficient independent evidence and difficulty segregating evidence | Denial of severance affirmed — evidence attributable to Clay independent and sufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery, PFDCF, conspiracy | Evidence (video, flight, throwing motion, recovered gun, cash, timing) supports accomplice liability and conspiracy | No proof of prior agreement, relationship, or knowledge Land had a gun; mere presence insufficient | Convictions for robbery, PFDCF, and conspiracy affirmed — jury could infer lookout role and knowledge of firearm |
| Tampering with physical evidence (11 Del. C. § 1269) | Clay suppressed evidence by throwing gun away during pursuit | The gun was immediately retrievable and Clay did not successfully suppress it | Tampering conviction reversed — act observed by officer; suppression was not successful |
| Motions to suppress (stop and arrest) | Stops and arrest were supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause based on location, matching description, flight, and throwing motion | Initial stop lacked reasonable suspicion; arrest lacked probable cause | Denials of suppression affirmed — totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion and probable cause |
| Rule 26.2 production of DOJ intake sheet and prosecutor’s notes (cross‑appeal) | Documents related to testimony and should be produced after direct exam | Intake sheet and prosecutor’s notes are not witness “statements” under Rule 26.2 and are protected | Superior Court abused discretion ordering production — intake sheet and interview notes not discoverable under Rule 26.2 |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. State, 575 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1990) (standard for reviewing severance motions)
- Floudiotis v. State, 726 A.2d 1196 (Del. 1999) (appellate review of severance discretion)
- Manley v. State, 709 A.2d 643 (Del. 1998) (factors for granting separate trials)
- Cline v. State, 720 A.2d 891 (Del. 1998) (standard of review for judgment of acquittal)
- Harris v. State, 991 A.2d 1135 (Del. 2010) (tampering requires successful suppression)
- Lopez‑Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280 (Del. 2008) (review standard for suppression rulings)
- Oliver v. State, 60 A.3d 1093 (Del. 2013) (discovery rule application and harmless‑error framework)
- Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1957) (origin of witness‑statement production rule mirrored in Rule 26.2)