Case Title: Wood v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 274, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
JOSEPH F. WOOD, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 274, 2003 
Defendant-Below,  
§ 
Appellant       
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
  v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
     
 
 
 
 
§ 
Criminal Action Number: 
STATE OF DELAWARE ,                  § 
IN02-09-0620, 0621, 0622,                                  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§                        0624 
 
 
Plaintiff-Below,               § 
 
 
Appellee 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:        October 22, 2003 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
     October 31, 2003 
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE, and JACOBS, Justices 
 
ORDER 
 
This 31st day of October, 2003, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and of the record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1)   The Defendant-Below, Appellant, Joseph Wood, was indicted by 
a grand jury on September 9, 2002 for Disorderly Conduct, Possession of a 
Deadly Weapon by a Prohibited Person, Aggravated Menacing, Possession 
of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and Endangering the 
Welfare of a Child.  Following a bench trial on February 27, 2003, the trial 
judge found Wood not guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, but 
guilty on the remaining counts.  On May 2, 2003,  the  Superior Court fined 
 
2
Wood $200 for the Disorderly Conduct, and sentenced him o a total of eight 
years and nine months at various levels on the remaining charges. 
(2)  Wood appeals from that sentence.  His claim is that the trial judge 
erred in finding that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of the 
underlying charges. 
(3)  Where an appeal is grounded on a claim that the evidence was 
insufficient to convict, the standard of review is whether a rational finder of 
fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find 
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.1   
(4)  The record discloses the following pertinent facts:  Darnell 
McKinney and the defendant engaged in a business deal in which McKinney 
would print five hundred business cards for the defendant for $40.  Before 
the cards were printed, defendant gave McKinney $40, but there was an 
unexplained delay in delivering the cards.  The defendant telephoned 
McKinney and left a profane message on his answering machine.  On 
August 9, 2002, McKinney and his four year old daughter went to Anderson 
Rentals, where the defendant, Joseph Wood, and a few others, were standing 
outside.  The daughter went into the store, and McKinney approached 
Wood, to ask why he had left the angry message on his answering machine..  
                                                 
1 Trump v. State, 753 A.2d 963, 973 (Del. 2000). 
 
3
An argument ensued, and McKinney allegedly put his hands on Wood’s 
chest and told him “We need to end this [the argument] right now.”  Wood 
told McKinney to take his hands off of him, and according to McKinney’s 
testimony, Wood pulled out a gun and pointed it at him.  The store owner 
testified that he heard the argument, came out of the store and told Wood 
and McKinney to take their argument elsewhere.  McKinney then picked up 
his daughter and left. The store owner also testified that he never saw a gun 
pointed at McKinney.  A patron of Anderson  Rentals who was inside the 
store during the incident also testified that he never saw Wood with a gun. 
(5)  In this case, it was the exclusive province of the trial judge, as 
fact-finder, to determine witness credibility and to resolve any conflicts in 
the testimony.2  The transcript of the trial court’s ruling clearly demonstrates 
that he was careful to reconcile the conflicting testimony of McKinney with 
that of the store owner and the patron.3  The trial judge determined that 
McKinney’s testimony was more credible on some issues, but that the 
testimony of the other two witnesses was more credible on other issues.  
Because the careful, rational findings by the trial judge were sufficient to 
sustain the convictions, those findings should not be disturbed. 
 
                                                 
2 Chao v  State, 604 A.2d 1351, 1363 (Del. 1992). 
3 See Trial Tr. at 171-176. 
 
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the convictions and 
sentence of the Superior Court are AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ JACK B. JACOBS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice