Case Title: Watson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 590, 1999

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
WAYNE WATSON,
Defendant Below,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below,
Appellee.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. 590, 1999
Court Below: Family Court of
the State of Delaware in and
for New Castle County
JN97-4124
Submitted:  February 16, 2001
Decided: 
March 30, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
ORDER
This 30th day of March 2001, upon consideration of the briefs of the
parties, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On December 29, 1997, Wayne Watson, a juvenile, was arrested and
charged with three (3) counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse First Degree.  The
charges arose when Watson’s neighbors, two juvenile boys, alleged that Watson
climbed through their bedroom window, threatened to stab them with a Swiss
Army knife, and forced them to engage in sexual acts.  At the time of the
incident in 1997, Watson was in sixth grade, and his neighbors were in first and
third grades.
- 2 -
(2) On May 14, 1999, a bench trial was held in the Family Court of the
State of Delaware, New Castle County.  Several witnesses testified, including the
defendant, the complainants, the complainants’ mother and father, the
complainants’ father’s girlfriend, and the investigating officer.  Watson was
found guilty on all three charges.
(3) Watson filed a timely appeal in this Court and on December 2, 1999,
he directed the Family Court to issue a certified copy of the record.  On January
4, 2000, Watson filed an amended direction to the Family Court seeking the
transcripts of the May 14, 1999 trial.  Watson received a letter from the Family
Court stating that, “the beginning of the hearing is missing due to mechanical
error.”  The portion of the missing record included the cross-examination of the
George Eachis Jr., the older complaining witness, and the direct examination and
a portion of the cross-examination of the younger complaining witness, Daniel
Eachis.  This testimony took place after lunch on May 14, 1999, the first day of
the trial.  The trial transcript resumes on May 15, 1999 with the cross-
examination of Daniel.
(4) On appeal, Watson argues that a new trial is required because the
record of the trial is inadequate for appellate review in this Court.
- 3 -
(5) On October 12, 2000, we remanded the case to the Family Court and
instructed the trial court to reconstruct the record to the extent practicable.1  
(6) A remand hearing was held on October 19, 2000, and the trial judge
filed her report on December 1, 2000.  Watson continues to argue that the
augmented trial record is not adequate for appellate review.  We agree.
(7) The adequacy of a trial record is a question of law and is subject to de
novo review.2   This Court has the inherent power to deal with the loss of a
portion of a trial record in the manner best calculated to promote the interests of
justice.3  Additionally, this Court may order further proceedings to complete the
testimony in order to protect both the Court’s jurisdiction and the appellant’s
right of appeal.4  It is well settled in Delaware that the loss of part of the trial
record does not entitle the appellant to a new trial as a matter of law.5  In order
to obtain a new trial due to the loss of the trial record, the appellant must show
that a) the lost record is vital to a proper review of the appellant’s case; and b)
there is no practicable way of reconstructing the record or of providing a
                                   
1  See Watson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 590, 1999, Steele, J. (October 12, 2000) (ORDER).
2  Wilmington Country Club v. Cowee, Del. Supr., 747 A.2d 1087, 1091 (2000).
3  Moore v. Moore, Del. Supr., 144 A.2d 765 (1958).
4  Id.
5  Moore, 144 A.2d at 767.
- 4 -
sufficient substitute.6  Additionally, a defendant must show that the missing
portion of the trial record prejudices the defense.7  “A transcript or an adequate
substitute for a transcript is required only to the extent that it is essential for the
presentation of a particular issue on appeal.”8
(8) In Bass, we refused the defendant’s request for a new trial because a
portion of the defendant’s own testimony had flown out of the window.  We
initially remanded the case for a hearing to determine which portions of the
transcript were missing.  On remand, it was determined that only two pages of
the defendant’s own testimony was missing.9  The Court stated “no one can say
that anything significant is missing from the transcript or that any significant
ruling was made which is not now available for review.”10  We reasoned under
those facts that the loss was de minimus, and that no prejudice to the defendant
was shown on account of the loss.11
                                   
6  Id.
7  Bass v. State, Del. Supr., 720 A.2d 540 (1984).
8  Id. at 541 (citing Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 83 S.Ct. 774, 9 L.Ed.2d 899 (1963)).
9  Id.
10 Id.
11  Id.
- 5 -
(9) In this appeal, Watson asserts that the trial court made erroneous
decisions regarding two evidentiary issues and that there was insufficient
evidence to find him guilty of the charges.  The two evidentiary issues concerned
the complainants’ prior false allegations of sexual molestation and the trial
judge’s restrictions on defense counsel’s cross-examination of the complainants
about their prior taped recantations.
(10) The issues raised by Watson all relate to the missing portions of the
trial transcript.  This case is unlike our decision in Bass because here the missing
testimony is that of the two complaining witnesses.  The issues Watson raises on
appeal all arise under the missing testimony.  The two evidentiary rulings were
made during the testimony of the complaining witnesses.  We have limited
transcripts of the boys’ testimony and we do not have a record of the evidentiary
rulings or the factual context in which they were raised to review.  To review
Watson’s claims with the record presented to us would be highly prejudicial.
(11) Although the report on remand includes supplemental information on
the evidentiary rulings by the trial judge, we conclude that the record remains
incomplete for appellate review.
- 6 -
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family
Court be REVERSED and that the case be REMANDED for a new trial.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice