Case Title: Grimes v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 416, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RUSSELL M. GRIMES, 
 
Defendant-Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff-Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 416, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 1108023033A 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  May 4, 2015 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 12, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
(1)  This is an appeal by defendant Russell Grimes, who was tried and 
convicted at the same trial as William S. Sells, III, his co-defendant.  In an earlier 
opinion, this Court held that the judgment of convictions entered against Sells had 
to be vacated because his ability to use his peremptory challenges had been 
improperly restricted.1  In that opinion, this Court determined that the State had 
failed to establish a prima facie case for a reverse-Batson violation by Sells, who 
had used two of his three peremptory challenges to strike white jurors.2  Thus, this 
Court found that the Superior Court erred by denying Sells the right to use a 
                                                 
1 See Sells v. State, 109 A.3d 568 (Del. 2015).   
2 Id. at 579. 
2 
 
peremptory strike on the ground that Sells failed to articulate a non-discriminatory 
reason for exercising his peremptory strike.3  
(2)  After that decision, this Court ordered supplemental briefing in this case, 
because Grimes’ exercise of peremptory challenges was restricted in the same 
manner, and our opinion addressed strikes made by both Grimes and Sells, which 
the Superior Court had improperly aggregated.    
(3)  We have considered the supplemental briefing carefully.  Although the 
State has tried hard to distinguish the cases, we fail to see any plausible basis on 
which to treat Grimes differently than Sells.  The Superior Court’s encroachment 
on their use of peremptory challenges was identical in all respects, including as to 
its ultimate effect: the seating of a juror after their peremptory strike (made first by 
Grimes and then joined in by Sells) against that juror was disallowed.   As a result, 
for the reasons set forth in our decision in Sells v. State, we vacate the judgment of 
convictions entered against Grimes on July 25, 2013 and remand for a new trial.4  
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
3 Id.  
4 Because we reverse on this ground, there is no need to address the other arguments made by 
Grimes on appeal.  The Court is grateful to Colm F. Connolly, Esquire, for serving pro bono as 
amicus curiae to provide the Court with supplemental briefing on the reverse-Batson issue.