Watson v. State
181, 2024
Del.Apr 14, 2025Background
- A police officer stopped a vehicle for suspected illegal window tint; Hakeem Watson, the passenger, fled on foot as soon as the car stopped.
- During the pursuit, the officer observed Watson from the side and behind, but never from the front; he saw Watson pull a black object (later found to be a firearm) from the front of his person and throw it over a fence.
- Watson was arrested and the firearm was recovered nearby. He was charged, among other things, with carrying a concealed deadly weapon (CCDW) and resisting arrest.
- At trial, the State’s argument was that Watson ran because he was carrying a gun; a flight instruction was given over defense objection, allowing the jury to consider flight as consciousness of guilt.
- Watson was convicted; he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence existed to prove concealment of the firearm for the CCDW charge and challenging the flight instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Watson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence on CCDW charge | Evidence did not show the firearm was concealed from ordinary sight. | Officer's view of side and back without seeing gun supports finding of concealment. | Insufficient evidence of concealment; conviction reversed. |
| Appropriateness of flight instruction | Instruction was improper comment on evidence and prejudicial under Rule 403. | Supported by case law; evidence justified inference of guilt by flight. | Moot; relevant only to CCDW charge, which was reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. State, 704 A.2d 267 (Del. 1997) (defining "concealed" in CCDW context; weapon must be hidden from ordinary sight)
- Goode v. State, 136 A.3d 303 (Del. 2016) (affirming CCDW conviction where witness saw weapon pulled from under clothing)
- Manuel v. State, 186 A.3d 103 (Del. 2018) (affirming sufficiency where concealed weapon was found in defendant's pocket)