Gallman v. State
14 A.3d 502
Del.2011Background
- Gallman was a back-seat passenger when police stopped a vehicle; a handgun was found in the glove compartment and a sawed-off shotgun was located on the right rear floorboard under a sweatshirt.
- Gallman was charged with possession of a firearm with a removed/altered serial number, PDW, and two counts of CCDW; the PDW count and CCDW counts were to be submitted to the jury with proposed jury instructions.
- Defense requested a PDW/CCDW instruction emphasizing that Gallman had power and intent to exercise control over the weapon.
- The trial judge instructed on CCDW (considering Dubin factors for accessibility) and gave a constructive possession instruction for PDW that omitted Gallman’s mental state element of intent.
- Gallman was convicted of one CCDW count and one PDW count; she was sentenced to seven years with partial suspension and probation.
- On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court held the CCDW instruction was correct, but reversed and remanded the PDW conviction for a new trial due to omission of intent as part of constructive possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CCDW instruction correctly stated the law | Gallman argued the instruction misstates law | State contends the instruction complied with Dubin factors | CCDW instruction affirmed |
| Whether a defendant’s intention is an element of constructive possession for PDW | Gallman asserted intent must be included | State argued intent not required by Clayton/Eley line | Intention required; PDW conviction reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Whether the PDW instruction properly described constructive possession | Gallman contends the instruction omitted required mental state | State argues instruction was appropriate under Lecates/Clayton | Instruction inadequate; remand for new trial on PDW count |
Key Cases Cited
- Lecates v. State, 987 A.2d 413 (Del. 2009) (constructive possession standard for PDW; intent may be shown by circumstantial evidence)
- Clayton v. State, 988 A.2d 935 (Del. 2010) (clarified that 'intention to guide the gun’s destiny' is not a required element for PDWPP; explains how intent may be shown)
- Eley v. State, 11 A.3d 226 (Del. 2010) (constructive possession instruction context in PDW; discusses power and intent to exercise control)
- Dubin v. State, 397 A.2d 132 (Del. 1979) (Dubin factors for accessibility in CCDW analysis)
- Comer v. State, 977 A.2d 334 (Del. 2009) (unqualified right to correct statement of law; relevance to instructions)
- Brown v. State, 967 A.2d 1250 (Del. 2009) (cited in instruction-related analysis)