Case Title: Widgeon v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 394, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-03-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CECIL L. WIDGEON, 
§
§
No. 394, 2004
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
in and for Sussex County
§
Cr. I.D. No. 0401015628A
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: January 26, 2005
Decided: March 7, 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 7  day of March, 2005, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
th
appears to the Court that:
1) Cecil L. Widgeon appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of two
counts of offensive touching, one count of endangering the welfare of a child, and one
count of assault in the third degree.  Widgeon argues that the trial court erred by not
sua sponte declaring a mistrial after the complaining witness mentioned a prior bad
act.
2) In 2003, Widgeon was living with his girlfriend, Viletta Newcomb, at her
home in Laurel, Delaware.  The relationship ended late in the year, but Widgeon
2
continued to stay with Newcomb and her 11 year old daughter, Miya, whenever he
had no place else to sleep.  In January, 2004, at about the same time that Newcomb
had told Widgeon he had to find his own place, the two got into an argument.  After
an exchange of words, Widgeon threw a vase and several chairs at Newcomb.  She ran
to a neighbor’s house for help, but no one answered the door.  
3)  When Newcomb returned to her house, she realized that she had been
stabbed in the right shoulder,  the back of her neck, and on her hand.  Newcomb did
not recall how she received those wounds, and she admitted that she did not see
Widgeon with a knife in his hand.  Widgeon testified that Miya was the one with a
knife and that Miya was standing behind her mother during the altercation.
 4) During the State’s examination of Newcomb, the prosecutor asked her how
she felt when Widgeon touched her face during the argument.  Newcomb responded
that she was scared because Widgeon had beaten her several times before that night.
Widgeon objected.  The trial court struck the reference to prior beatings and instructed
the jury to disregard the testimony.  On appeal, Widgeon contends that the trial court
should have declared a mistrial.  He argues that it was a close case, as evidenced by
the fact that he was acquitted on the more serious charges.  Since it was a close case,
he says, the only way to cure the prejudicial effect of Newcomb’s statement would be
to order a new trial.
Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986).
1
 Fuller v. State, 860 A.2d 324 (Del. 2004).
2
3
5) Because Widgeon never asked the trial court to declare a mistrial, we review
its failure to do so sua sponte for plain error, which is error “so clearly prejudicial to
substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”1
Generally, a curative instruction is sufficient to remedy any prejudice that may result
from an inappropriate comment such as this one.   Here, the fact that the jury acquitted
2
Widgeon on some of the charges indicates that Newcomb’s statement did not
prejudice him.  Thus, we find no error, plain or otherwise.
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