Rhoades v. State, 201, 2016

On Aug. 11, 2014, police observed suspicious activity at a Royal Farms parking lot involving Carl R. Rhoades and two others; officers later recovered multiple bags of heroin marked with a "blue stamp."
Rhoades fled from police, threw a bag from his vehicle, and was arrested after running; officers recovered 4.74 grams of heroin near where he discarded the bag.
Rhoades was charged with drug dealing heroin, aggravated possession, and numerous related offenses; at trial the jury acquitted him of second‑degree conspiracy but convicted him on the remaining counts.
During trial, Officer Patrick Stock testified he had "interviewed someone" and that a person "didn’t want to give statements," prompting Rhoades to move for a mistrial on Fifth Amendment grounds; the court denied the motion and offered a curative instruction which Rhoades declined.
The Superior Court sentenced Rhoades as an habitual offender to six years Level V incarceration and other penalties; Rhoades appealed, arguing the mistrial denial was an abuse of discretion and that aggravated possession should merge with drug dealing.

Issue	Rhoades' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial after Officer Stock said someone refused to give a statement	Officer argued the comment improperly referenced his Fifth Amendment right and was prejudicial, warranting a mistrial	The comment was isolated, did not specifically implicate Rhoades, and prejudice was minimal; the court offered a curative instruction	Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion (Pena factors weighed against mistrial)
Whether aggravated possession must merge with drug dealing for sentencing	Argued aggravated possession is a lesser‑included offense of drug dealing and must merge under §4766 and double jeopardy principles	State agreed the offenses should merge	Convictions must be merged for sentencing; case remanded for resentencing

Pena v. State, 856 A.2d 548 (Del. 2004) (sets four‑factor test for deciding whether unsolicited references to silence require a mistrial)
Revel v. State, 956 A.2d 23 (Del. 2008) (discusses Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and appellate review of mistrial denials)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes privilege against self‑incrimination and custodial warning requirements)
Shantz v. State, 344 A.2d 245 (Del. 1975) (prohibits comment on defendant’s exercise of right to remain silent)
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (prohibits prosecutorial comment on defendant’s silence)
Robertson v. State, 41 A.3d 406 (Del. 2012) (flight and evasion of arrest may be considered by a jury as consciousness of guilt)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for determining whether two statutory offenses are the same for double jeopardy/merger purposes)