Goode v. State, 136 A.3d 303

Background

Victim Jason Terry was shot twice during an apparent drug sale behind a Milford house; he survived and initially could not name his shooter but said he could recognize him.
The day after the shooting Terry’s cousin, Raye Boone, showed him a Facebook photo of Jhavon Goode; Terry then identified Goode as the shooter, and police arrested Goode.
Neighbors filmed parts of the incident and a neighbor later identified Goode as having been present before the shooting; shell casings were recovered at the scene.
Goode moved to suppress Terry’s out-of-court identification based on the photo; the Superior Court denied the motion because a private citizen (not police) provided the photo.
A jury convicted Goode of first-degree assault, possession of a firearm during a felony, and carrying a concealed deadly weapon; he was sentenced to 18 years Level V.
On appeal Goode challenged (1) suppression of the identification, (2) delayed disclosure of Boone’s identity (Brady/Rule 16/Confrontation), (3) sufficiency of the evidence, (4) jury instruction on reasonable doubt, and (5) denial of continuance for post-conviction testing; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Goode's Argument	Held
Whether Terry’s photo-based ID should be suppressed as unduly suggestive under Due Process	Suppression unnecessary because identification was procured by a private actor; Perry controls and requires state involvement for due-process screening	The photo shown by Boone was suggestive and tainted Terry’s ID; due process requires preliminary reliability inquiry	Court held no state actor involvement; Perry controls; trial protections suffice — ID admissible
Whether delayed disclosure of Boone’s identity violated Brady/Rule 16 or the Confrontation Clause	No Rule 16/Brady violation: report disclosed a family member showed a photo, State did not suppress identity, and Goode failed to request it; Confrontation not violated because testimony was limited and any improper mention was cured or opened by defense	Late disclosure denied effective use for impeachment and deprived Goode of confrontation rights	No plain error: no suppression or prejudice under Brady/Rule 16; Confrontation claim waived or cured by curative instruction
Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions	Evidence (Terry’s confident ID plus neighbor placing Goode at scene) sufficient for a rational juror to convict beyond reasonable doubt	Identification unreliable due to photo influence; thus evidence insufficient	Viewing evidence favorably to State, jury rationally could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt — sufficiency upheld
Whether repeating the standard reasonable-doubt instruction after jury asked for clarification deprived Goode of the proper standard	Re-reading an approved model instruction was appropriate; jury presumed able to follow it; counsel agreed	Jury remained confused and may have convicted under a lesser standard because court did not further clarify	No error: approved instruction given twice, counsel agreed, no basis to infer improper standard
Whether the court abused discretion by denying continuance for testing newly found gun before sentencing	Court had already granted time and Goode didn’t file new-trial motion; denial was reasonable to avoid delay and remand remedies remained	Needed more time to test gun and move for new trial; denial prejudiced Goode	No abuse of discretion: denial not clearly unreasonable and remedies available on appeal/remand

Key Cases Cited

Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (Due Process does not require pretrial reliability screening when identification is not procured by state actors)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s suppression of favorable, material evidence violates due process)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (due-process suppression standard requires a substantial likelihood of misidentification under totality of circumstances)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for assessing reliability of eyewitness ID)
Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (due process limits on admission of unreliable evidence)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay without prior cross-examination)
Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (model reasonable-doubt jury instruction approved)
Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811 (Del. 2013) (Delaware standard for reviewing constitutional claims)