Evans v. State
212 A.3d 308
| Del. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- Late-night noise call led Officer Nikituk to question two occupants of a vehicle; appellant Hakeem M. Evans gave two different names to police: "Nasir Evans" and later "Johnny Roberts."
- DELJIS searches for the provided names/birthdates returned no matches; a subsequent search of the phone number revealed Evans' true identity and an outstanding warrant.
- Evans was charged in Court of Common Pleas with one count of misdemeanor criminal impersonation (for giving the name "Nasir Evans").
- At bench trial the only evidence was Officer Nikituk’s testimony; he could not confirm whether the provided names corresponded to real persons.
- Trial court convicted Evans, concluding the statute did not require the false name to belong to a real person; Evans appealed.
- On appeal the State conceded it had not proved that "Nasir Evans" was a real, living person under the construction argued by Evans.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Evans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 907(1) requires the State to prove the impersonated identity is a real, living person | The statute criminalizes impersonating “another person” broadly; proof a name is fictitious is not required for conviction | The word "person" is defined in § 222(21) as "a human being who has been born and is alive," so the State must prove the name given belongs to a real, living person | Court held the State must prove the impersonated identity is a real, living person; conviction reversed for insufficient evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of H. Fletcher Brown Mansion v. City of Wilmington, 34 A.3d 1055 (Del. 2011) (statutory language controls when unambiguous)
- Arnold v. State, 49 A.3d 1180 (Del. 2012) (use plain statutory text to determine meaning)
- Stafford v. State, 59 A.3d 1223 (Del. 2012) (probable cause for arrest for impersonation may exist even if existence of named person is uncertain)
- Seth v. State, 592 A.2d 436 (Del. 1991) (courts must give effect to clear legislative intent and not rewrite statutes)
- Cephas v. State, 637 A.2d 20 (Del. 1994) (legislature, not courts, has prerogative to legislate)
- Williams v. State, 884 A.2d 512 (Del. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)