State of Delaware v. Clinton Harris
1507013159
| Del. Ct. Com. Pl. | Sep 26, 2016Background
- Defendant Clinton Harris was charged by superseding information with 1 count of Sexual Harassment (Count I) and 8 counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Third Degree (Counts II–IX); dates for several counts were alleged as ranges (Mar 1–Jul 31, 2012).
- After a Bill of Particulars, the State specified the alleged threat for Count I and described the contact for Count II; the State later conceded Count II was defective and the court dismissed it.
- Defendant moved to dismiss Count I (arguing the alleged statement was not a threat), to dismiss Counts IV–IX for lack of precise dates, for impermissible disjunctive charging, and because counts allegedly rely on recovered memories from psychotherapy/hypnotherapy beyond the statute of limitations.
- The State provided additional discovery (police reports, victim statements, journal references) and investigated the victim’s prior hypnotherapy but could not contact the hypnotherapist; victim reported last hypnotherapy visit in 2008.
- The Court partially dismissed Count I at the hearing as to one statutory theory but preserved the Sexual Harassment charge based on the alleged statement; it denied dismissal of Counts IV–IX and ordered the case to trial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Harris's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged statement "I am fully capable of touching your breasts" is a threat under Sexual Harassment statute | Whether the statement constitutes a threat is a factual question for the jury; unwanted touching of breasts qualifies as a sexual offense | Statement is not a threat or likely to result in a sexual offense; insufficient as a matter of law | Court denied dismissal on this ground; whether it is a true threat is for the finder of fact |
| Whether date ranges (122 days) for Counts IV–IX are insufficient | Precise date not required if time is not an element; State provided all available specifics and acted diligently | Broad date range prejudices defense and prevents alibi preparation; State must justify lack of precise dates | Court held date ranges permissible: time not of the essence, State acted in good faith, defendant offered no specific prejudice |
| Whether charging in the disjunctive (alternative means: contact offensive OR without consent) is improper | Alternatives are historically permissible; State need not elect before trial | State must elect one theory; disjunctive pleading is unfair | Court held disjunctive charging permissible; adequate notice given |
| Whether counts rely on memories recovered via psychotherapy/hypnotherapy and thus require independent corroboration under 11 Del. C. § 205(e) | Victim did not recover memories via psychotherapy in this case; independent corroboration exists (e.g., victim journal, other evidence) | If memories were recovered via psychotherapy, prosecution is barred absent independent corpus delicti evidence | Court found State met minimal § 205(e) requirements given record (victim journal, State’s investigation) and denied dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Luttrell v. State, 97 A.3d 70 (Del. 2014) (information must give accused notice of charges)
- Richardson v. State, 673 A.2d 144 (Del. 1996) (charging alternative means in one count is permissible)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (historical practice permits listing alternative means in an indictment)
- Commonwealth v. Niemetz, 422 A.2d 1369 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980) (date ranges permissible where precise dates cannot be established and defendant not prejudiced)
- Commonwealth v. McClucas, 516 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986) (lack of chronological specificity does not warrant reversal absent prejudice to defense)