Howell v. State
Howell v. State, 268 A.3d 754
| Del. | 2021Background
- Police executed simultaneous searches (Feb. 16, 2018) at 12 Bradbury (Sharon Howell’s home) and 23 Aldershot (rented by Karieem and Malique Howell), seizing cash, vacuum-seal bags, scales, ammunition, multiple firearms, and small amounts of marijuana.
- Brian Caldwell was arrested shortly after; police seized ~340 grams of marijuana, cash, and used vacuum-seal bags from his home. Caldwell later agreed to cooperate with the State in exchange for plea/ sentencing benefits.
- Caldwell testified that he regularly bought pounds of marijuana from Karieem, that he picked up marijuana at Bradbury the night before the raids, that he had seen large quantities (over 100 lbs) at Howell’s residence, and that Howell once offered to sell a “dirty” (serial-number-obliterated) gun.
- During Caldwell’s testimony, the trial judge instructed the jury they may not consider Caldwell’s cooperation agreement when weighing his credibility — a directive the State concedes was legally erroneous. No contemporaneous objection was made.
- The jury convicted Howell on multiple counts (including a possession-with-intent-to-deliver count alleging 4,000+ grams of marijuana and a serial-number-obliteration weapon count); Howell appealed. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded based on plain error in the cooperating-witness instruction, but addressed other issues (404(b) admission, sufficiency) as necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Howell's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s instruction that the jury "may not consider" a cooperating witness’s agreement when assessing credibility was reversible plain error | The instruction misstated the law, improperly foreclosed the jury from weighing a critical impeachment factor (the cooperation deal), and prejudiced Howell | Although erroneous, the error was not plain because other evidence was strong and a correct, general credibility instruction was given before deliberations | Reversed: the instruction was plain error because it unduly restricted the jury’s consideration of a relevant credibility factor and undermined trial fairness; new trial ordered |
| Admissibility under D.R.E. 404(b) of Caldwell’s testimony about prior drug sales to Howell and the offer to sell a “dirty” gun | Prior-acts evidence was unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded | The testimony was material to intent, knowledge, identity and was supported by texts and eyewitness testimony; Getz/DeShields factors were satisfied | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse its discretion admitting the testimony for permissible purposes (plan/knowledge/intent) |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for (a) possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number and (b) weight element (4,000g+) of drug count | Evidence was insufficient (ownership by brother, timing gaps, small recoveries at searches) | Caldwell’s testimony, ammunition in Howell’s backpack, text messages, cash, bags, and other testimony provided a rational basis for the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed as to sufficiency: viewed in light most favorable to State, a rational juror could find the elements proved |
| Whether courtroom configuration (partial obstruction of jurors’ view of defendant) violated Howell’s right to be present/due process | Obstructed view prevented jurors from observing defendant’s demeanor and impaired fairness | Howell was physically present at all trial stages and visible when testifying; non-testifying demeanor is not evidence | Denied: no constitutional violation; presence and due process intact |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. State, 91 A.3d 972 (Del. 2014) (cooperation/plea agreements are relevant impeachment material for juries when assessing credibility)
- Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966) (approving jury instruction advising caution when assessing testimony influenced by benefits or promises to witnesses)
- Getz v. State, 538 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988) (framework for admitting other-act evidence under D.R.E. 404(b))
- DeShields v. State, 706 A.2d 502 (Del. 1998) (supplementing Getz with balancing factors for Rule 403 analysis of prior-act evidence)
- Torres v. State, 979 A.2d 1087 (Del. 2009) (buyer’s testimony may suffice to establish drug quantity for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978) (successful appeal on non-insufficiency grounds does not bar retrial on same charge)