Case Title: Moore v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 517, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KEVIN MOORE,
§
§
No. 517, 2004
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below:
§
Superior Court of the
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
State of Delaware in
§
and for Kent County
Plaintiff Below,
§
Cr. I.D. No. 0404006954
Appellee.
§
Submitted: October 19, 2005
Decided: November 9, 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY,
Justices, constituting the Court en banc.
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  REMANDED.
Edward C. Gill, Esquire, of the Law Office of Edward C. Gill, P.A., Georgetown,
Delaware, for Appellant.
John R. Williams, Esquire, of the Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware, for
Appellee.
BERGER, Justice:
2
In this appeal, we consider whether an abuse victim’s statement in a presentence
report may be withheld from the defendant.  The victim asked that the defendant not
be allowed to see her statement because she was afraid of what the defendant would
do if he knew that she had cooperated with the State.  The Superior Court agreed, and
subsequently sentenced the defendant based, in part, on the undisclosed information
in her statement. While we understand the trial court’s interest in protecting the
victim, both Superior Court Rule 32 and fundamental fairness require that the
defendant be given an opportunity to explain or rebut the factual information that the
court relies upon when imposing sentence.  Since the defendant did not have that
opportunity, we must vacate his sentence and remand for the imposition of a new
sentence.
Factual and Procedural Background
In June 2004, Kevin Moore was charged with second degree assault, terroristic
threatening, endangering the welfare of a child, and fourth degree rape.  The offenses
all related to an April 2004 incident involving his girlfriend, Elaine Burris.  In
September 2004, Moore entered into a plea bargain under which he agreed to plead
guilty to second degree assault and the State agreed to recommend a six-month
sentence at Level V and to nolle pros the remaining charges.
3
The presentence report includes, among other things, a summary of the incident,
victim interview, and offender interview.  According to the summary, Burris arrived
home at about 11:45 p.m. on April 8, 2004, after attending a job interview.  Moore
accused Burris of cheating on him and a verbal altercation ensued.  When Moore
started shoving and pushing Burris, she retreated to a bedroom.  According to Burris,
she was crouched in front of the bedroom door, trying to shut it, when Moore kicked
the door in.  The door struck Burris in the eye, shattering her left eye socket.  Burris’s
two children, aged eleven and thirteen, witnessed the incident.  
Burris reported these events to the Milford Police Department the next day.  In
June 2004, she added to her report, explaining that, at one point during the altercation,
she was using the bathroom and Moore entered the room, pulled her off the toilet, and
pushed his finger into her private area.  
The undisclosed victim interview vividly described an escalating pattern of
abuse:
The offender has repeatedly choked the victim, pulled chunks of hair
from her head, pushed her down the stairs, bloodied her fingers while
attempting to pull her engagement ring off, suffocated her with pillows,
burned her eyelids with cigarettes....She recalls one occasion where the
offender put her down on the floor and shoved a meat skewer to the back
of her throat.  During this time he asked her what she thought might
happen if he pushed on it.
4
It also provides details about the abusive relationship, Moore’s drinking habits, and
Burris’s fears for her safety.
At sentencing, the trial court noted that Burris sustained serious injuries, and
that her children witnessed the assault and were traumatized by it.  In addition, the
court addressed Moore’s past conduct:
You do have a bit of a history of prior violence in this case.  I have
to take that into account as well.  The aggravating factors are such that
the Court finds that there is a prior violent criminal activity on your part.
There does appear to be a need for correctional treatment given your
record and past history.
I do view your comments today as helpful.... [T]here has been a
prior abuse situation with the victim on previous occasions, although you
have not been charged or found not guilty of some of those offenses, or
the State has nolle prossed them.  But nevertheless, the nature of this
offense does indicate there has been a prior record of misbehavior....
The redacted presentence report includes most of the information that the trial court
referred to at sentencing.  Several of the more serious instances of prior abuse,
however, are described only in Burris’s statement.
The trial court sentenced Moore to eight years at Level V, suspended after five
months for six months at Level IV.  This appeal followed.
Discussion
5
When he filed his opening brief on appeal, Moore was unaware of Burris’s
statement.  He argued that the trial court improperly based its sentencing decision on
unsubstantiated allegations that lacked even minimal indicia of reliability.  Moore
learned about Burris’s statement only when the State included an unredacted copy of
the presentence report in the appendix filed with its answering brief.  At oral
argument, Moore acknowledged that Burris’s statement provided a sufficient basis for
the trial court’s findings at sentencing.  The only issue, therefore, is whether Moore’s
sentence should be vacated because he was prevented from seeing, and responding to,
Burris’s statement.
Superior Court Criminal Rule 32 provides, in relevant part:
(a) Sentence. 
(1) Imposition of Sentence. ... When there is a presentence
investigation, the court shall provide the counsel for the defendant and
the attorney general with the presentence officer’s determination,
pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (c)(2)(B), ....At the sentencing
hearing, the court shall afford the counsel for the defendant and the
attorney general an opportunity to comment upon the presentence
officer’s determination and on other matters relating to the appropriate
sentence.
*
*
*
(c)  Presentence investigation.  
*
*
*
(2) Report.  Unless the court orders a limited investigation,
the report of the presentence investigation shall contain –
(A) Information about the history and characteristics of the
defendant, including prior criminal record...
Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 845 (Del. 1992)(quoting  Lake v. State, Del. Supr., No. 67,
1
1984, Horsey, J., at 3 (Oct. 29, 1984)).
6
*
*
*
(D) A victim impact statement in accordance with 11 Del.
C. § 4331(d);
*
*
*
(3) Disclosure.  At least 7 days before imposing sentence ...
the court shall allow the defendant’s counsel ...and the attorney general
to read the report of the presentence investigation, including the
information required by subdivision (c)(2) but not including any final
recommendation as to sentence.  The court shall afford the parties an
opportunity to comment on the report and, in the discretion of the court,
to present information relating to any alleged factual inaccuracy
contained in it....
      
In short, Rule 32 requires disclosure of every portion of the presentence report except
the investigating officer’s final recommendation as to the appropriate sentence.  The
redacted presentence report that was made available to Moore prior to sentencing did
not comply with the Rule.
In other contexts, failure to adhere to a court rule might not constitute reversible
error.  Here, however, Moore’s right to know what was in the Burris statement exists
independent of any rule.  This Court has held that a defendant must be given some
opportunity “to explain or rebut any uncorroborated evidence upon which the court
relies in making its sentencing determination,”  as a matter of fundamental fairness.
1
The trial court stated that it “thoroughly reviewed the presentence investigation
conducted by [the] ISO office.”  We must assume, therefore, that the information in
7
the presentence report, including Burris’s statement, formed at least a part of the
evidence the court relied upon in sentencing Moore.  Thus, Moore should have been
given the opportunity to address Burris’s statement before being sentenced.
The State argues that a resentencing is not mandated because the information
in Burris’s statement was “merely cumulative,” and Moore suffered no prejudice. We
disagree.  The abuses described in Burris’s statement were more graphic and  arguably
more severe than those described elsewhere in the presentence report.  Although
Moore’s counsel could not assure this Court that his client would attempt to rebut any
of Burris’s statements, he did state that, in light of the newly discovered information,
his presentation would be different.  Since he is entitled to have an opportunity to
“explain,” we conclude that he must be given a new sentencing hearing. In reaching
this conclusion, we are not unmindful of the concerns expressed by this victim.   But,
if the trial court relies on uncorroborated facts in a victim’s statement, the statement
cannot be withheld from the defendant.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the sentence is vacated, and this matter is remanded to
the Superior Court for resentencing.  Jurisdiction is not retained.