Case Title: Dupree v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 63, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOHN DUPREE,
§
§
No. 63, 2006
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
in and for New Castle County
§
Cr. I.D. No. 0408024419
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: August 16, 2006
Decided:   October 3, 2006
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 3  day of October, 2006, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
rd
appears to the Court that:
1) John R. Dupree was convicted, following a bench trial, of 17 counts of first
degree robbery, 6 counts of attempted first degree robbery, 2 counts of second degree
robbery, 1 count of attempted second degree robbery, and 2 counts of first degree car
jacking.  He appeals from three of those convictions, arguing that he did not represent
by words or conduct that he was in possession or control of a deadly weapon.
2) On August 23, 2004, Dupree walked into an Alko Clothing Store in
Wilmington,  and asked Gwendolyn Cortes, an employee, to show him a hat.  After
2
Cortes retrieved the hat and placed it on the counter, Dupree told her that he had a gun
and demanded that she open the cash register and place the money in the hat.  Cortes
did not see a weapon, and did not believe that Dupree had one.  As a result, instead
of following his directions, Cortes dialed 911 on a cordless phone that she had been
holding.  Dupree fled the store.
3) On August 27, 2004, Dupree was more successful.  He entered a Video
Advantage store in Wilmington, and asked James Stoddart, an employee, whether the
store had a VHS copy of the movie, “12 Angry Men.”  Stoddart checked behind the
counter and determined that the store did not have the movie.  Dupree then said to
Stoddart, “This is how it’s going to work: You either give me the register or I’m going
to start hitting you and you’re going to get hit.”  Stoddart hesitated, and Dupree
repeated, “I’m going to start shooting you and you’re going to get shot.” Stoddart
feared for his safety, and gave Dupree all the bills in the register.
4) The third incident took place on August 29, 2004, at a Pep Boys store in
Wilmington.  Dupree picked out some items, and went to the counter.  Shirley Wise
started to ring up his selections when Dupree reached under his jacket, grabbed what
appeared to be his belt buckle, and told her, “Don’t say anything, don’t scream, or I’ll
shoot you.”  Wise responded, “You said you’re going to do what?” She then yelled
for her boss, and Dupree fled.
11 Del.C. §831(a).
1
11 Del.C. §832(a)(2).
2
3
5) Dupree argues that his conduct only amounted to second degree robbery (or
attempted second degree robbery) because, in the course of committing theft, he
“use[d] or threaten[ed] the immediate use of force....”     A person is guilty of first
1
degree robbery when, in addition to all of the elements of second degree robbery, the
person, “displays what appears to be a deadly weapon or represents by word or
conduct that the person is in possession or control of a deadly weapon....”    
2
6) The three charges being appealed did not involve the display of what
appeared to be a deadly weapon.  Therefore, the only issue is whether Dupree’s words
were sufficient to support  first degree robbery convictions.  Dupree says that they
were not, arguing that there is no difference between a  threat to use force under §831
and a representation that the person has a deadly weapon under §832.  We disagree.
7)  First degree robbery is a more serious offense than second degree robbery
because it involves more serious criminal conduct.  The “threat to use immediate force”
element of second degree robbery could be satisfied by a threat to punch the victim or
hit the victim with a stick, for example.  If a person tells a victim that he or she has a
gun, or other deadly weapon, the person is threatening the victim with loss of life, not
just potential injury.  Thus, there is a difference in degree between the general “threat
4
to use immediate force” and the threat to kill that is communicated by the
“representation that the person is in possession or control of a deadly weapon.”  
8)  In each of the three robberies on appeal, Dupree either told the victims that
he had a gun or that he would shoot them.   In doing so, Dupree represented that he was
in possession or control of a deadly weapon.  Thus, his convictions must be affirmed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby are, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice