Case Title: Carter v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 387, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DERRICK CARTER, 
 
§ 
 
 
§ 
No. 387, 2004 
 
Defendant Below, 
§ 
 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court of  
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
              v. 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§ 
Cr. I.D. No. 0306019202 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted:  January 19, 2005 
 
 
Decided:     February 14, 2005 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 14th day of February 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
After a trial in Superior Court, a jury convicted Carter of one count of 
first degree robbery.  Carter appeals from that conviction, arguing that the trial 
judge erred by refusing to allow Carter to cross-examine the victim on a matter 
Carter contends was relevant to show that the victim was biased.     
 
(2) 
The charge against Carter arose out of a June 2003 incident in which 
Charles Wambua, the victim, accompanied a prostitute to a hotel room that was 
rented in Carter’s name.  Carter had agreed to let the prostitute “turn tricks” in the 
room.  At trial, Wambua testified that when he arrived at the hotel room, Carter 
robbed him at gun point.  During cross-examination, defense counsel asked 
Wambua if he had been with prostitutes in the past.  The State objected to the 
question as irrelevant, and the trial judge sustained that objection. 
 
(3) 
A decision to admit or exclude evidence based on relevancy is within 
the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse 
of discretion.1  Relevant evidence is defined as evidence “having any tendency to 
make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the 
action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”2 
 
(4) 
Although Carter contends that Wambua’s previous involvement with 
prostitutes was relevant to show the victim’s bias toward Carter, he has not shown 
how such prior involvement would bias Wambua against Carter.  Nor has Carter 
shown how the evidence would otherwise be probative of his guilt or innocence.  
Accordingly, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding that evidence.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
       
 
          Justice 
                                          
 
1 Howard v. State, 549 A.2d 692, 693 (Del. 1988); Thompson v. State, 399 A.2d 194, 198-99 
(Del. 1979). 
2 D.R.E. Rule 401.