Case Title: Geyer v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 456, 2000

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-08-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DAVID GEYER,
)
)  No. 456, 2000
Defendant Below
)
Appellant,
)  Court Below:  Superior Court
)  of the State of Delaware in
v.
)  and for Sussex County
)
STATE OF DELAWARE,
)  Cr.A. No. S00-02-0481I through
)  0483I and
Plaintiff Below,
)  Cr. ID No. 0002009095
Appellee.
)
Submitted:  May 15, 2001
Decided:  August 7, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 7th day of August, 2001, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
appears to the Court that:
1.
After trial, a Superior Court jury found David Geyer not guilty of
Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony and guilty of
Aggravated Menacing and Assault Third Degree.
2.
On February 15, 2000, Geyer apparently brandished a plastic toy
hammer, which he concedes to have appeared to be a deadly weapon, at one victim
and kicked another victim in the head.
2
3.
On Appeal, Geyer claims the Superior Court erred when it refused to
instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of Menacing, a charge subsumed
within Aggravated Menacing.
4.
We review the Superior Court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion.
5.
In this case, Geyer concedes that the plastic toy hammer “appeared to
be a deadly weapon.”1  The victim testified that Geyer brandished a hammer.
Geyer and another witness testified that the instrument brandished was a toy.
Geyer further admitted at trial that the victim thought it was a hammer and acted as
if he were being chased by Geyer with a hammer.
6.
The focus on a charge of aggravated menacing is on the display of
“what appears to be a deadly weapon.”2
7.
The Superior Court correctly focused on Geyer’s admissions and the
victim’s belief that Geyer brandished a hammer and that he chased the victim with
a hammer placing him in such fear of imminent physical danger that he vomited
during the chase.  There was, in fact, no rational basis for a charge on the lesser
included offense of menacing and the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in
so ruling.3
                                          
1 See 11 Del.C. 1953, sec. 602.
2 See Ward v. State, 575 A.2d 1156 (1990).
3 See Lilly v. State, Del. Supr., 649 A.2d 1055 (1994).
3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele______________
Justice