Case Title: Sheppard v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 61, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-09-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
NATHANIEL SHEPPARD,
§
§
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§ No. 61, 2001
§
v.
§ Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware in and
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§ for Sussex County
§ Cr.A. Nos. IS00-07-0386 through
Plaintiff Below,
§ 0389 and IS00-07-0393
Appellee.
§
Submitted: September 17, 2001
Decided:
September 27, 2001
Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 27th day of September 2001, upon consideration of the briefs of the
parties, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Nathaniel Sheppard (“Sheppard”), appeals his Superior
Court conviction of certain drugs and weapons offenses arising out of his arrest on
June 28, 2001.  
(2)
Sheppard contends that his arrest was based on a stop sign violation
observed by the police the previous day and was thus pretextual.  He argues that the
evidence seized during his arrest should have been suppressed.  Sheppard also
alleges error in the Superior Court permitting the State to reopen its presentation of
2
evidence during a pretrial suppression hearing to recall a State’s witness after closing
arguments.
(3)
On careful review of the record, we conclude that neither claim of error
has merit.  Although there was a delay in arresting Sheppard for the stop sign
violation, the officer who observed the violation had sufficient grounds for not
making an immediate arrest, including the facts that the officer was out of his
jurisdiction and operating in an undercover status.  The police can secure a warrant
for a traffic violation and execute that warrant at a later date, as occurred here.  We
agree with the Superior Court that the execution of the warrant and the subsequent
seizure of the defendant’s vehicle incident to the towing of the vehicle was not
pretextual since it was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant.  Tatman v. State,
Del. Supr., 494 A.2d 1249 (1985).
(4)
With respect to Sheppard’s claim that the Superior Court erred in
permitting the State to reopen its case to present additional evidence, we review that
claim under the standard of abuse of discretion.  Under the circumstances, and in the
absence of a clear showing of prejudice, we find no abuse of discretion.
3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby is,
AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
                                        Justice