State v. Benson
1604008779
| Del. Super. Ct. | May 31, 2017Background
- April 13, 2016: undercover police arranged a heroin buy by text with a phone number linked to Benson; meet at an All Stop parking lot in Newark.
- Officer texted arrival; Benson replied (visible on his seized phone) "Na im waitn here." Officers observed Benson and Dominique Roberson approach; both were arrested. Roberson had five bundles of heroin and a Samsung phone; Benson had a Samsung with a cracked screen.
- While being transported after arrest, Roberson asked officers, "Do you know how much dope it was?" (question later challenged as hearsay and Confrontation Clause violation).
- Police used a borrowed prepaid undercover phone for texts; that prepaid phone was later lost after being returned to the lending officer.
- County police performed a destructive "chip-off" on Benson’s seized phone about three weeks post-arrest after non-destructive methods failed; no data was recovered and the phone was destroyed. Police did not seek Benson’s passcode or notify defense before the chip-off; no exigency existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Roberson’s question to police | Roberson’s question is admissible (State) | Benson: exclude as hearsay and Confrontation Clause violation | Court: not hearsay (question not an assertion); Confrontation Clause not implicated because Roberson is available to testify — motion DENIED |
| Lost/lost-copy texts on prepaid undercover phone | State: no duty to preserve that copy; not dispositive | Benson: lost police copy deprived him of discoverable material | Court: police had no duty to preserve the prepaid phone copy; loss of that copy alone is not Deberry breach — reserved further relief regarding other losses |
| Destruction of defendant’s phone via chip-off | State: reasonable forensic effort; chip-off was last resort | Benson: phone was Deberry material; destruction breached duty and warrants relief (exclusion or adverse presumption) | Court: phone was Deberry material; police had duty to preserve and breached it by performing non-exigent destructive test without seeking passcode — degree of negligence low; importance of missing data likely low; other evidence (officer report, recovered screen message) exists; remedy deferred until full trial record; immediate Deberry relief RESERVED |
| Remedy under Deberry (adverse inference / exclusion) | State: secondary evidence exists; no fundamental unfairness | Benson: requests exclusion or jury instruction presuming messages would be exculpatory | Court: relief depends on whole-record Deberry factors (negligence, importance, sufficiency of other evidence); currently suggests no relief likely but final decision DEFERRED until trial evidence is complete |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (Supreme Court) (Confrontation Clause satisfied when declarant is available for cross-examination)
- Bear Stops v. United States, 339 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2003) (hearsay analysis: questions/inquiries generally not hearsay)
- Lexington Ins. Co. v. Western Pa. Hosp., 423 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2005) (questions are generally not assertions for hearsay purposes)
- Deberry v. State, 457 A.2d 744 (Del. 1983) (establishes two-step test and remedies when prosecution loses potentially exculpatory evidence)
- Johnson v. State, 27 A.3d 541 (Del. 2011) (discusses State's preservation duties under Deberry)
- Jones v. State, 841 A.2d 307 (Del. 2004) (lost evidence not Deberry violation when missing items lack meaningful exculpatory value)
- Powell v. State, 49 A.3d 1090 (Del. 2012) (speculative missing evidence does not establish substantial prejudice)
- Hendricks v. State, 871 A.2d 1118 (Del. 2005) (defense may argue missing evidence significance to jury even if court denies missing-evidence instruction)
- Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81 (Del. 1989) (denial of Deberry relief where remaining evidence strongly supports conviction)
- Lolly v. State, 611 A.2d 956 (Del. 1992) (authorizes missing-evidence jury instruction when missing evidence is integral and secondary evidence unavailable)