Case Title: James v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 89, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-09-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STEFONE JAMES,
§
§
No. 89, 2005
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
in and for New Castle County
§
Cr. I.D. No. 0401022383
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: August 24, 2005
Decided: September 15, 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 15  day of September, 2005, on consideration of the briefs of the parties,
th
it appears to the Court that:
1) Stefone J. James appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of assault
second degree, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and related
charges. James argues that the Superior Court erred in instructing the jury on second
degree assault because there was no evidence to support an acquittal on first degree
assault and a conviction on the lesser included offense.  We find this argument lacks
merit, and affirm.
11 Del.C. §§613(a), 222(23).
1
11 Del. C.§§612(a), 222(22).
2
663 A.2d 452 (Del. 1995).
3
2
2) On January 30, 2004, James and Jeffrey Nagle got into a fist fight over
missing marijuana.  The fist fight turned into a gun fight when James pulled out a gun
and fired two shots.  One bullet hit David Brainard, who had come with Nagle to the
fight scene, and the other hit James’s friend, Vincent Saienni.  Brainard suffered what
was described as a “flesh wound.”  The bullet entered and exited Brainard’s upper
torso without striking any vital organs. Brainard stayed in the hospital only one day.
3) James was charged with first degree assault, among other offenses, and the
State urged the jury to find him guilty of that offense, arguing that Brainard’s bullet
wound caused “serious physical injury” by causing “prolonged impairment of
health.”  But the State also requested the trial court to instruct the jury on second
1
degree assault, which requires only “physical injury,” defined as “impairment of
physical condition or substantial pain.”   James objected, but the Superior Court gave
2
the instruction.
4) James argues that, since the evidence about Brainard’s wound provided a
rational basis for the jury to convict him of first degree assault, the State was not
entitled to an instruction on second degree assault.  He relies on Webb v. State,  where
3
Id. at 463.
4
3
this Court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of a defense request for a lesser included
offense instruction.  The Webb court applied settled law, holding that the lesser
included offense instruction is only warranted when “evidence in the record ...
provides a rational basis for acquittal of first degree rape and conviction for sexual
assault....”4
5) Here, as noted by the trial court, there was a rational basis for the jury to
acquit on first degree assault, and convict on second degree assault.  The difference
between the two offenses depends on the extent of Brainard’s injury.  The jury could
have determined that Brainard suffered only physical injury, and not serious physical
injury, because his wound was superficial and he was hospitalized for only one day.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice