State v. Wood
0512020169
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jun 27, 2017Background
- Bruce Wood was convicted by a jury of 16 counts of first‑degree rape and 2 counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to 290 years (judgment affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court).
- Wood filed multiple postconviction Rule 61 motions: First (denied and affirmed on appeal), Second (denied and affirmed), and this Third Motion (the subject of this Report).
- Wood’s Third Motion asserted newly discovered evidence (primarily that he was not employed by Lowe’s, undermining witness testimony), claims about his lucidity and lack of counsel in prior collateral proceedings, and alleged cumulative error and Brady violations.
- Wood also moved for appointment of counsel and filed motions to compel investigative materials (Detective Greer’s Lowe’s investigation) and victims’ counseling records.
- The Commissioner recommended summary dismissal of the Third Motion as procedurally barred, denial of appointment of counsel, and denial of the motions to compel, finding the proffered “new evidence” cumulative, available at trial, or insufficient to show actual innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the third Rule 61 motion is procedurally barred as untimely/successive | Motion is successive and filed more than one year after conviction became final; dismissal unless narrow exceptions met | Motion asserts newly discovered evidence of actual innocence and other bases to overcome timeliness bar | Motion is procedurally barred under Rule 61(i); dismissal recommended because Wood failed to plead particularized new evidence that would probably change the result |
| Whether Wood pleaded new evidence showing actual innocence (employment at Lowe’s) | State: evidence is cumulative/attenuated, available at trial, and would not probably change verdict | Wood: presents IRS letter, third‑party affidavit, and his own affidavits showing he did not work for Lowe’s and that witnesses lied | Court: proffered materials are cumulative or discoverable earlier; testimony about subcontracting explains absence of Lowe’s records; evidence would not probably change outcome |
| Whether counsel should be appointed for this successive postconviction motion | State: appointment inappropriate because motion fails to meet Rule 61(d)(2) pleading standards for successive motions | Wood: requests counsel to pursue claims raised in his motion | Court: denies appointment — motion does not satisfy pleading requirements to warrant counsel on a successive motion |
| Whether discovery/compelled production (Detective Greer file; counseling records) is warranted | State: requested materials were either produced, reviewed in camera, or available at trial; no good cause for additional discovery | Wood: seeks investigative results and victims’ counseling records as potentially exculpatory/new evidence | Court: denies motions to compel — records were available or previously litigated; Rule 61 contains no routine discovery right and Wood failed to show good cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (court must consider Rule 61 procedural requirements before merits)
- Capano v. State, 781 A.2d 556 (Del. 2001) (standards governing appointment of counsel in postconviction proceedings)
- Hicks v. State, 913 A.2d 1189 (Del. 2006) (standard for newly discovered evidence in postconviction context)
- Downes v. State, 771 A.2d 289 (Del. 2001) (application of newly discovered evidence standard in collateral proceedings)
- Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186 (Del. 1996) (court’s discretion to allow particularized discovery in postconviction proceedings)