Case Title: Darling v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 558, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DESHAUNE D. DARLING, 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 558, 2003 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for Kent County  
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
)  Cr. ID No. 0303017264 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  April 13, 2004 
Decided:  April 29, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of April 2004, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it 
appears to the Court as follows: 
1. 
On March 24, 2003, Delaware State Police Sergeant John Samis 
informed Detective Brian Talley that a past-proven reliable confidential informant 
observed and identified Defendant/Appellant Deshaune Darling selling crack 
cocaine on Unity Lane in Williamsville, a well-known drug area.  The informant 
described a vehicle at the scene and stated that he bought crack from Darling 
earlier that day.  Talley ran a search on Darling, found a photograph of him and 
determined that he was on probation.  Around 7 p.m., members of a police unit 
called the Governor’s Task Force (“GTF”) drove down Unity Lane and observed 
 
2
three males standing next to a vehicle fitting the informant’s description.  When 
the GTF members got out of the car and identified themselves, the three males 
fled.  A probation officer with the GTF caught and arrested Darling.  The arresting 
officer and Talley returned to search the area where Darling was apprehended and 
found a plastic bag containing 26 grams of marijuana packaged in 26 individually 
wrapped smaller bags.  No one observed Darling discard the package.   
2. 
On the first day of the trial, Darling moved to suppress the evidence 
seized at the scene of his arrest.  The trial judge conducted an evidentiary hearing 
on the motion and Talley testified as the sole witness.  The trial judge denied the 
motion, finding no basis to suppress the evidence.  Darling was convicted of 
possession with intent to deliver marijuana (PWID) and resisting arrest.  He was 
sentenced to 42 months at Level 5 for the PWID conviction and one year Level 3 
probation for resisting arrest.  Darling now appeals his conviction. 
3. 
Darling contends that the trial judge erred by not suppressing evidence 
because the police had neither probable cause to arrest nor reasonable suspicion to 
detain him.  Probable cause may be established by an informant’s tip where the 
totality of the circumstances would lead one to conclude the information was 
reliable.1  An arresting officer may act on the belief that his fellow officer’s 
                                                 
1 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983). 
 
3
judgment is correct.2  Reasonable suspicion is determined by an examination of the 
totality of the circumstances through the eyes of a reasonably trained police 
officer.3  We review the trial judge’s evidentiary decisions for an abuse of 
discretion.4   
4. 
In the case sub judice, Talley’s reliance on the past proven reliable 
confidential informant coupled with his computer check and his observations from 
the scene established probable cause to arrest Darling.5  Additionally, Darling’s 
flight created reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory detention.  Based on 
the totality of the circumstances, the trial judge acted appropriately within his 
discretion by denying the motion in limine.  
5. 
Darling also contends that the trial judge erred by permitting Talley to 
offer expert testimony concerning whether Darling possessed the marijuana for 
personal consumption or for the purpose of resale.  Darling’s argument rests on 
Talley’s admission during voir dire that he was not an expert.  Opinion testimony 
by a person with knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, may be 
admitted if it is based on sufficient facts, is the product of reliable principles and 
methods, and the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the 
                                                 
2 State v. Cooley, 457 A.2d 352 (Del. 1983). 
3 Del. Const. Art. 1 § 6. 
4 Virdin v. State, 780 A.2d 1024, 1030 (Del. 2001); Woody v. State, 765 A.2d 1257,1261 (Del. 
1990). 
5 See King v. State, 1993 WL 445484, **2 (Del. Supr.). 
 
4
facts of the case.6  The trial judge has discretion to determine whether factual 
evidence supports admitting opinion testimony.    
6. 
Here, Talley’s training and experience in narcotics investigation 
enable him to give opinion evidence.  He has been a member of the GTF for three 
years, where he has participated in over one hundred drug arrests.  He has also 
attended more advanced formal training in the drug trade than regular State 
Troopers.  Sufficient facts existed in the record to support the trial judge’s 
determination that Talley could render an expert opinion regarding Darling’s 
reason for possessing marijuana packaged in that particular way.  Accordingly, the 
trial judge acted appropriately within his discretion. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that the judgment of the Superior 
Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 Del. R. Evid. 702.