Case Title: Couch v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 585, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRADY COUCH,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 585, 2002 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
)  Cr. ID. No. 0104005738 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  April 8, 2003 
Decided:  May 7, 2003 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 7th day of May 2003, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it 
appears to the Court as follows: 
 
1. 
A Grand Jury indicted Brady Couch, the appellant, on two counts of 
Robbery in the First Degree.1  The State agreed to enter a nolle prosequi on one of 
the Robbery in the First Degree charges in exchange for Couch’s agreement to a 
non-jury trial.  On July 16, 2002, a Superior Court judge found Couch guilty. 
2. 
In this appeal, Couch argues that the trial judge erred by denying his 
Motion for Judgment of Acquittal because the State failed to present sufficient 
evidence identifying Couch as the robber.  Because we believe that the trier of fact 
                                                 
1 11 Del. C. § 832.   
 
2
could easily find from the circumstantial evidence that Couch was guilty beyond a 
reasonable doubt, we conclude the trial judge did not err and affirm Couch’s 
conviction. 
 
3. 
George Batcher worked behind the counter at Wilmington’s 
Ferschke’s Beauty and Barber Supplies’ store and Ted Cartos, the accountant, 
worked in the store’s back office.  On April 2, 2001, at approximately 4:15 p.m., a 
man entered the store, removed the item “Murray’s Hair Dressing Pomade” from 
the shelf, and placed it on the counter.  When Bratcher opened the register, the 
suspect struck him in the head.  The suspect then took the money out of the 
register.  Before the suspect could flee, Bratcher grabbed the suspect, and the two 
started to wrestle on the floor.  At some point, Cartos came out to help, but 
eventually the suspect escaped.  Bratcher and Cartos gave descriptions of the 
suspect to the police, including the fact that the suspect had a marble sized mole on 
his left cheek.  Wilmington P.D.’s Officer Flaherty also lifted a latent fingerprint 
on the store’s interior door and three fingerprints from the “Murray’s Hair 
Dressing Pomade” that the suspect had placed on the counter.  Less than three 
weeks later, Flaherty saw an individual who matched the description at 7th and 
West Street in Wilmington.  That person gave Flaherty a fake name, but fingerprint 
identification identified him to be Brady Couch.  Couch’s fingerprints matched 
those found on the Pomade and the interior door. 
 
3
 
4. 
Couch argues that the fingerprint evidence alone is insufficient for the 
State to meet its burden that he robbed the store.  Couch relies on Monroe v. State.2  
In Monroe, the defendant was charged with burglarizing an appliance store.  The 
only evidence linking the defendant to the crime were his fingerprints found on a 
shard of glass at the point of entry.  We held that “the range of abundant, innocent 
explanations for the presence of Monroe’s prints on the plexiglass shards was too 
vast for any rational trier of fact to have found beyond a reasonable doubt an 
essential element of both charged offences – namely, identity.”3 
 
5. 
This Court reviews de novo the denial of a motion of judgment of 
acquittal to determine “whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in 
the light most favorable to the State, could find the defendant guilty beyond a 
reasonable doubt.”4 
 
 
6. 
Monroe is clearly distinguishable from this case.  In Monroe, the only 
evidence linking Monroe to the crime were his fingerprints found on the shard of 
glass.  Here, in addition to the fingerprints, there was a significant amount of 
circumstantial evidence identifying Couch as the robber.  First, both victims gave a 
description of Couch, including the description of the marble sized mole on his left 
cheek.  Later, the arresting officer immediately recognized the defendant based 
                                                 
2 652 A.2d 560 (Del. 1995). 
3 Id. at 567. 
4 Seward v. State, 723 A.2d 365, 369 (Del. 1999) (quoting Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 
1355 (Del. 1991). 
 
4
largely on the description of the marble sized mole.  In addition, Couch’s 
fingerprints were found on the Pomade the robber took from the shelf and placed 
on the counter.  The likelihood that Couch had once touched that very item 
innocently sometime in the past is too remote to be coincidental.  Finally, police 
also found Couch’s prints on the interior door rather than the exterior door, 
indicating that the prints were from someone who had entered the store rather than 
from a passerby on the sidewalk.  Batcher also testified that the store rarely had 
“in-and-out traffic,” and that he did not recognize Couch to be a regular customer.  
Combining the direct fingerprint evidence with circumstantial evidence creates a 
strong inference that Couch was the robber.  Given the well recognized standard 
for consideration of a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, we conclude that the trial 
judge did not err by denying Couch’s motion.  A rational trier of fact could easily 
have found that the circumstantial and fingerprint evidence identified Couch as the 
robber beyond a reasonable doubt. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice