Case Title: Kirk v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 293, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-12-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARK KIRK, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 293, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9612002650 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 26, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 5, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 5th day of December 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Mark Kirk, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s May 14, 2007 order denying his fourth motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In 1997, following a Superior Court bench trial, Kirk was found 
guilty of three counts of Felony Murder in the First Degree, one count of 
Arson in the First Degree, two counts of Assault in the First Degree, and one 
 
2
count of Assault in the Third Degree.1  Kirk was sentenced to a total of 3 
terms of life imprisonment plus 23 years.  Kirk’s convictions and sentences 
were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.2 
 
(3) 
Kirk subsequently filed two unsuccessful postconviction 
motions pursuant to Rule 61.  As a result of Kirk’s third postconviction 
motion, however, his felony murder and first-degree assault convictions 
were vacated and he was re-sentenced on three convictions of the lesser-
included charge of Manslaughter in the First Degree and two convictions of 
the lesser-included charge of Assault in the Second Degree.3   This Court 
affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.4      
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Kirk claims that “newly discovered evidence,” 
consisting of a videotape of three failed attempts by a forensic fire 
investigator to ignite Captain Morgan’s Spiced Rum on an electric stovetop 
burner, proves that he is innocent of the charges against him.  As part of his 
claim, Kirk also contends that the expert forensic testimony presented by the 
                                                 
1 The State presented evidence that Kirk, intoxicated and in a fit of jealous anger, 
deliberately poured Captain Morgan’s Spiced Rum on an electric stovetop burner, 
causing a fire in his girlfriend’s apartment building that resulted in the deaths of three 
people and serious injuries to several others.    
2 Kirk v. State, Del. Supr., No. 532, 1997, Berger, J. (Apr. 29, 1999) (en Banc). 
3 Williams v. State, 818 A.2d 906 (Del. 2003) (overruling the interpretation of the felony 
murder statute relied upon in Chao v. State, 604 A.2d 1351 (Del. 1992)). 
4 Kirk v. State, Del. Supr., No. 72, 2005, Steele, C.J. (Dec. 23, 2005). 
 
3
State at his trial was falsified, the defense forensic expert did not provide 
credible evidence in his behalf, and his confession was coerced.      
 
(5) 
Kirk’s postconviction claims are time-barred because they were 
not asserted within three years of the issuance of this Court’s mandate 
affirming his original convictions, nor were they asserted within one year of 
the issuance of this Court’s mandate affirming his latest manslaughter and 
assault convictions on January 12, 2006.5  Moreover, Kirk’s claims have 
previously been asserted and decided either in his direct appeal or in his 
prior postconviction motions.  As such, they are procedurally barred as 
formerly adjudicated.6     
 
(6) 
Kirk attempts to overcome the time and procedural bars by 
arguing that his video is “new evidence” that constitutes a colorable claim of 
a miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined 
the “fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings 
leading to the judgment of conviction.”7  Even assuming that Kirk’s 
argument is cognizable under Rule 61, we, nevertheless, are not persuaded 
by it.   
                                                 
5 The three-year statute of limitations applies to convictions occurring before July 1, 2005 
and the one-year statute of limitations applies to convictions occurring on or after July 1, 
2005.  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1).   
6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4). 
7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
 
4
 
(7) 
At Kirk’s trial, two videotapes were presented---one by the 
State and the other by the defense.  The State’s videotape was used to 
demonstrate that the fire could have started in the manner asserted by the 
State, while the defense videotape was used to demonstrate that it could not 
have.  While Kirk argues that the defense expert was not as credible as the 
State’s expert, the evidence on how the fire started was, nevertheless, 
essentially in equipoise.  However, there was additional compelling evidence 
supporting Kirk’s guilt, most notably his own confession.  There is, thus, no 
indication that the “newly discovered” videotape would have changed the 
outcome of the trial, much less that there was a miscarriage of justice due to 
a constitutional violation.  We find no error or abuse of discretion on the part 
of the Superior Court in denying Kirk’s fourth motion for postconviction 
relief. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice