Miller v. State
654, 2015
| Del. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Multi-agency investigation (Oct. 2014) into a Wilmington/Delaware heroin distribution ring identified Antoine Miller, Andrew Lloyd, and ~40 others; police sought search warrants based on a 99-paragraph affidavit.
- Affidavit linked Miller and his girlfriend Felicia Pagan to Lloyd’s trafficking through surveillance, wiretaps, and a confidential informant who reported use of Pagan’s maroon van and stash-house activity.
- Justice of the Peace issued a warrant; officers executed it at Miller’s residence on Oct. 30, 2014 and seized 1,428 bags of suspected heroin, large amounts of cash, and a firearm (the gun was independently observed thrown by Miller).
- Miller was indicted for racketeering/conspiracy, aggravated possession of heroin (≥5 grams), and weapons offenses; he moved to suppress the heroin and gun and sought an in camera Flowers hearing regarding the confidential informant.
- At evidentiary hearing Miller showed some informant statements were false (timing/ownership of the van; cohabitation history), argued those inaccuracies defeated probable cause and justified a Flowers hearing; trial court denied suppression and Flowers relief; jury convicted Miller and sentenced him to 20 years Level V.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Miller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant / probable cause (after excising false informant statements) | Affidavit—minus inaccurate informant claims—still contained corroborated facts linking Miller/Pagan to Lloyd’s drug enterprise and stash-houses, providing probable cause to search the residence. | False informant statements (van sightings, van ownership, prior cohabitation) were material; removing them leaves insufficient nexus/probable cause to search Miller’s home. | Court affirmed: even excluding the false parts, the remaining corroborated facts supported probable cause. |
| Flowers in camera disclosure of confidential informant | State asserted privilege and that Miller failed to show the informant could materially aid the defense beyond speculation. | Miller argued informant’s inaccuracies warranted in camera questioning to test reliability and materiality. | Court affirmed denial: Miller did not show the informant’s testimony would materially aid the defense, so no Flowers hearing required. |
| Judgment of acquittal on aggravated possession for lack of expert drug/weight testimony | Circumstantial evidence (1,428 similarly packaged bags, packaging markings matching Lloyd’s, cash, chemist’s weight calculations) sufficed to prove >5 grams and that substance was heroin without chemical/weight expert at trial. | Lack of expert testimony on chemical composition and precise weight meant State failed to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt. | Court affirmed denial of acquittal: a rational jury could infer the substance was heroin and exceeded five grams from circumstantial evidence. |
| Excessiveness of sentence (20 years) | Sentence was within statutory limits and based on permissible factors. | Miller argued his minimal acts did not justify the lengthy sentence. | Court affirmed: sentence not illegal or based on impermissible factors; no abuse of discretion shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (defendant entitled to hearing if makes substantial showing that affidavit contains knowing or reckless falsehoods necessary to probable cause)
- Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288 (Del. 2006) (probable cause assessed from affidavit’s four corners using totality of circumstances)
- LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103 (Del. 2008) (corroborated informant tips can supply probable cause even when informant’s credibility is unknown)
- Flowers v. State, 316 A.2d 564 (Del. Super. 1973) (framework for confidential informant disclosure and in camera review)
- Seward v. State, 723 A.2d 365 (Del. 1999) (chemical testing not always required; circumstantial evidence may suffice to prove controlled substance identity)
- Rybicki v. State, 119 A.3d 663 (Del. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings after evidentiary hearing)