Zhurbin v. State
104 A.3d 108
| Del. | 2014Background
- On October 9, 2012, Zhurbin left Delaware Park Casino; shortly after, his Pontiac Firebird crashed in the casino parking lot (private property) and later exited onto a public street.
- A patron followed the car to a nearby restaurant, identified Zhurbin as the person exiting the vehicle, and police found keys on Zhurbin and injuries consistent with the crash.
- Zhurbin was indicted on four counts: DUI, leaving the scene of an accident (21 Del. C. § 4201), removal of a vehicle from an accident scene, and no proof of insurance; he was acquitted of DUI and the insurance count was dismissed.
- A jury convicted Zhurbin of leaving the scene and related charges; he appealed only the § 4201 conviction, arguing § 4201 applies only to collisions on public highways.
- The Superior Court included ‘‘public roadway’’ in its jury instruction; Zhurbin did not raise the statutory-interpretation issue below.
- The Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and considered the statutory text, chapter context, and the 1988 amendment deleting "on the public highways."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Zhurbin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4201 applies only to collisions on public highways | § 4201 applies to collisions generally; the statute governs operation and stopping duties and was intended to cover private property collisions | § 4201 is limited by § 4101(a) which confines Title 21 vehicle-operation provisions to highways unless a section specifically says otherwise, so § 4201 applies only to public highways | The Court held § 4201 applies to collisions on public and private property; the 1988 deletion of "on the public highways" and § 4203's text confirm this interpretation |
| Whether the Superior Court's inclusion of "public roadway" in jury instructions was reversible error | The State implicitly argues any error was harmless because the statutory elements were satisfied and the instruction favored the defendant | Zhurbin argues the instruction misstated the law, requiring reversal | The Court found the erroneous instruction favored Zhurbin and any error was harmless, not plain error; conviction affirmed |
| Whether appellate review is barred because issue wasn't raised below | State contends issue was not preserved and plain-error standard applies | Zhurbin seeks reversal despite not raising the issue below | The Court applied plain-error review, found no plain and obvious error, and declined to reverse |
| Whether legislative history supports inclusion of private-property collisions | State cites the 1988 amendment and bill synopsis showing intent to require stopping at all accidents, including private property | Zhurbin offered no contrary legislative history | The Court relied on the amendment and bill synopsis to confirm legislative intent to cover private-property collisions |
Key Cases Cited
- CML V, LLC v. Bax, 28 A.3d 1037 (Del. 2011) (standard of review for legal questions)
- Hoover v. State, 958 A.2d 816 (Del. 2008) (plain statutory text controls when unambiguous)
- Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Mohr, 47 A.3d 492 (Del. 2012) (read statutory sections together to produce harmonious whole)
- United Savings Ass'n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1988) (context in statutory scheme can clarify ambiguous provisions)
- Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096 (Del. 1986) (plain-error standard and requirements for appellate review of unpreserved claims)