Wilson v. State
480, 2016
| Del. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- In March 2016 a Superior Court jury convicted James A. Wilson of second-degree assault, disregarding a police officer's signal, and three motor-vehicle offenses; he was acquitted of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony (PDWCF).
- After a presentence investigation the Superior Court declared Wilson a habitual offender and sentenced him to seven years at Level V plus one year of probation (Sept. 13, 2016).
- On April 4, 2013, officers with a search warrant for the business "Many Things" and for the persons of Wilson and a co-owner encountered Wilson outside the premises; officers in tactical gear identified themselves and ordered him to stop.
- Wilson fled in his vehicle, backed into a parking lot and then drove away, ran a red light one block later, and broadsided a pickup, causing significant injuries to the victim.
- Wilson moved pretrial to dismiss/suppress arguing the warrant did not authorize seizure outside the business; he also argued insufficiency of evidence for assault and felony-level disregarding an officer's signal, and ineffective assistance (the last not considered on direct appeal).
- The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed, holding the warrant authorized searching/seizing Wilson’s person outside the premises and that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the assault and disregarding-officer convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of seizure outside premises named in search warrant | Warrant explicitly authorized search of Wilson’s person; seizure outside premises was permitted to execute the warrant | Warrant was not an arrest warrant and did not authorize seizure of Wilson outside Many Things | Warrant authorized search of Wilson’s person and did not limit execution to inside the business; seizure outside was lawful |
| Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree assault (state of mind) | Evidence showed Wilson recklessly caused serious injury by means of a dangerous instrument (the vehicle) during flight | Wilson claimed he fled in panic fearing officers would shoot him and did not intend to injure anyone | Viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, a rational juror could find reckless causation of serious injury beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction upheld |
| Jury inconsistency: acquittal on PDWCF but conviction for assault | Jury lenity permits upholding an assault conviction inconsistent with acquittal on a related charge where evidence supports conviction | Inconsistency shows insufficient proof of use of deadly weapon or intent necessary for assault | Inconsistency explained by rule of jury lenity; conviction stands because evidence was sufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony-level disregarding an officer's signal | Officers in tactical gear with "POLICE" ordered Wilson to stop; he refused, meeting statutory elements | Wilson suggested he fled out of fear and therefore did not commit the felony offense | Evidence that Wilson received and disregarded an officer's signal was sufficient to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 962 A.2d 233 (Del. 2008) (ineffective assistance claim preservation rule for direct appeal)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (standards for counsel withdrawal and appellate review of frivolous appeals)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (counsel withdrawal principles in appellate context)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal as having found no meritorious issues)
- Tilden v. State, 513 A.2d 1302 (Del. 1986) (jury lenity rule and upholding convictions despite inconsistent verdicts)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)