State v. Pittaway, 1512011828

Defendant Grant Pittaway was tried twice on one count of Second Degree Assault after a first trial ended in a mistrial; a second jury convicted him on August 16, 2017.
The assault arose from a bar altercation in which Pittaway struck the victim in the face, resulting in serious physical injury.
At the second trial the State presented the victim, an eyewitness, and an arresting officer live; the treating nurse’s testimony was admitted by stipulation. The defense presented the defendant and another eyewitness.
Witness accounts conflicted in details (positions, statements, sequence), and both parties’ witnesses had varying certainty; the victim and defendant had been drinking.
Pittaway did not dispute that he struck the victim or that injury occurred; he asserted self-defense and argued the State’s evidence contained irreconcilable conflicts.
Post-conviction, Pittaway moved under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 29(c) for judgment of acquittal (insufficiency of evidence) or alternatively for a new trial under Rule 33 (verdict against the weight of the evidence).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence / Rule 29(c) — could a rational jury find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?	State: evidence (victim injury, testimony) supports finding defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; credibility and conflicts are for the jury.	Pittaway: contradictions among State witnesses create irreconcilable conflicts so no rational trier of fact could convict.	Denied — conflicts were not "irreconcilable." Viewed in State’s favor, a rational jury could find all elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
New trial / Rule 33 — is the verdict against the weight of the evidence or required in the interests of justice?	State: the jury resolved credibility and could reasonably reject self-defense; no miscarriage of justice shown.	Pittaway: inconsistent testimony and factual disputes warrant a new trial in the interest of justice.	Denied — the Court found no basis to disturb the jury’s resolution of conflicts or to order a new trial.

Washington v. State, 4 A.3d 375 (Del. 2010) (standard on irreconcilable conflicts and jury factfinding)
Bland v. State, 263 A.2d 286 (Del. 1970) (precedent on trial issues cited by defendant)
Davis v. State, 706 A.2d 523 (Del. 1998) (rule that sufficiency review views evidence in light most favorable to the State)
Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236 (Del. 2005) (deference to jury on credibility and conflict resolution)