Title: Balko v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
NICHOLAS W. BALKO, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 621, 2001 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN00-09-0225 
§                   IN00-09-0226 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 29, 2002 
  Decided:   July 18, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 18th day of July 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief filed 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and 
the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Nicholas W. Balko, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree and Assault 
in the Third Degree.  On the first conviction, Balko was sentenced to 3 years 
incarceration at Level V.  On the second conviction, Balko was sentenced to 1 
year incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for 1 year at Level III probation.  
This is Balko’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Balko’s trial counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  The standard and scope of review applicable to the 
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 
26(c) is twofold: (a) the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that could 
arguably support the appeal; and (b) the Court must conduct its own review of 
the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least 
arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary 
presentation.1 
                                                 
1Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 
429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
 
 
-3- 
(3) 
Balko’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, 
Balko’s counsel informed Balko of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided 
him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and the 
complete trial transcript.  Balko was also informed of his right to supplement his 
attorney’s presentation.  Balko responded with a brief that raises several issues for 
this Court’s consideration.2  The State has responded to the position taken by 
Balko’s counsel as well as the issues raised by Balko and has moved to affirm the 
Superior Court’s judgment.   
(4) 
The issues Balko raises may fairly be summarized as follows:  a) the 
evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the convictions; b) the 
prosecutor engaged in misconduct in his behavior towards the victim, the jurors 
and the defendant; c) the jury instructions were improper; d) the Superior Court 
ruled improperly on various evidentiary issues; e) the Superior Court abused its 
discretion in hurrying the testimony of the witnesses; and f) the trial was tainted 
by the victim’s communication with a social worker employed by the State of 
                                                 
2Balko presents over 200 separate questions for consideration by this Court, which may 
fairly be categorized as 6 separate issues. 
 
 
-4- 
Delaware before she had finished her testimony in violation of the Superior 
Court’s order.   
(5) 
At trial, Carolina Collins, the victim’s mother, testified as the first 
witness for the State.  She stated that, on the evening of August 22, 2001, her 
daughter Sheila ran, crying, into their house at Brownleaf Road, Newark, 
Delaware, and said she had been raped by “Nick.”  According to Mrs. Collins, 
Sheila’s back was dirty, her pants had grass stains, her lip was cut and she had an 
injury to her eye.  Mrs. Collins testified she knew who “Nick” was because he had 
appeared at their front door drunk one day and her husband had ordered him 
off their property.  On cross examination by the defense, Mrs. Collins agreed 
that her husband had told her about this incident and that she was not present 
when it occurred.  
(6) 
Following Mrs. Collins’ testimony, defense counsel requested that 
all references to Mr. Collins’ encounter with Nick Balko be stricken as 
prejudicial hearsay or, in the alternative, that a mistrial be granted.  After a 
lengthy discussion outside the presence of the jury, the judge resolved the issue 
by giving the jury the following cautionary instruction: “Any observation and/or 
conclusion as to the sobriety of the defendant prior to the date of the offense in 
 
 
-5- 
question by individuals other than those who are present in court and testifying 
are not relevant for purposes of resolving these charges or the charges with which 
the defendant is charged with having committed.  Such statements are to be 
disregarded by you as a result and I so instruct you.”    
(7) 
Sheila Hitchcock, the victim, testified next for the State.  Sheila 
stated that she was 39 years old, had graduated from Christiana High School and 
had been a special education student.  She stated that she suffers from 
depression and was taking several medications for that condition at the time of 
the incident with Nick.  Sheila testified that, on the evening of the incident, she 
was in Nick’s trailer for an hour or two talking about a mutual friend who had 
recently died.  She got up to leave, but Nick stopped her.  He knocked her down 
and undid his pants; she screamed and he punched her in her left and right jaw; 
she bit him twice on the face.  Sheila testified that Nick penetrated her vaginally, 
but was unable to ejaculate.  When asked if she told Detective Bond of the New 
Castle County Police Department on the evening of the incident that she had 
used “psychology” on Nick, she said she did not remember.  Without objection 
by the defense, the prosecutor then played a tape of Sheila’s interview with 
 
 
-6- 
Detective Bond on the evening of the incident, which confirmed that she had 
made that remark.   
(8) 
On cross examination, Sheila testified that she and Nick were just 
friends, but that she drank beer with him, did errands for him and sometimes 
ended up alone with him.  She stated that Nick was already drunk when she 
arrived at his trailer and confirmed that the “psychology” she used on Nick was 
to suggest that, if he left her alone, she would have sex with him some other 
time.  Because Sheila’s cross examination was not completed by the end of the 
first day of trial, the judge instructed her that she would remain under oath until 
the next day and could not speak to anyone about her testimony in the 
meantime.  The following morning, out of the presence of the jury and the 
witnesses, the prosecutor notified defense counsel that, in violation of the 
Superior Court’s order, Sheila had spoken to a social worker employed by the 
State of Delaware about her testimony the previous day.  She was apparently 
concerned that she had mischaracterized the extent of the penetration that had 
occurred on the night of the incident.  The prosecutor offered to have Sheila and 
the social worker testify about their communication, but defense counsel 
preferred to leave the issue alone, noting that any such testimony might bolster 
 
 
-7- 
Sheila’s credibility with the jury.  Observing that there would be no reason for 
the prosecutor to raise the issue on redirect if defense counsel did not raise it 
first, the judge then instructed Sheila to be brought into the courtroom and 
defense counsel to continue his cross examination.    
(9) 
Miriam Denny, an emergency room nurse and sexual assault nurse 
at Christiana Hospital, testified as the next witness for the State.  Denny stated 
that she examined Sheila at about 1:00 a.m. following the incident.  She testified 
that Sheila looked disheveled and was upset.  She had bruises on her face, a 
bruise on the inside of her top lip, and abrasions and scratches all over her back 
and both knees.  Denny testified that the internal examination conducted on 
Sheila was unremarkable and did not indicate the presence of sperm.  During 
direct examination, Denny referred to a questionnaire that she had completed 
during her initial interview with Sheila.  While Sheila reported initially that there 
was a “long knife,”she subsequently clarified that Nick had not threatened her 
with a knife.  Following lengthy voir dire and argument outside the presence of 
the jury, the judge refused to allow the defense to ask Denny questions about the 
interaction of depression medication and alcohol because no evidence had been 
presented establishing Denny’s qualifications in that area.  
 
 
-8- 
(10) The State’s next witness was Robyn Quinn, a forensic DNA analyst 
from the Medical Examiner’s Office.  She testified that in December 2001 the 
Medical Examiner’s Office received the sexual assault evidence collection kit, 
sealed envelope and sealed paper bag in this matter from Detective Bond and was 
asked to analyze the items for the presence of sperm and/or bodily fluids.  Quinn 
analyzed the underpants in the bag and vaginal and rectal swabs.  The 
underpants contained no semen.  While the swabs tested positive for the enzyme 
found in semen, there was no semen found.   
(11) The State’s next witness was Detective Bond of the Criminal 
Investigations Unit of the New Castle County Police Department.  Bond was the 
chief investigating officer for the incident.  He testified that he received the 
evidence from Nurse Denny and delivered it to the Medical Examiner’s Office 
for analysis.  He also testified that Sheila took him to Nick Balko’s trailer at 
about 5:20 a.m. the morning after the incident.  At that time, he and two other 
police officers woke Balko up and explained to him that he had been accused of 
sexually assaulting Sheila Hitchcock.  Balko told them that he remembered 
Sheila coming to the trailer for a drink, but could not remember anything else.  
His lip was cut and he had marks on his face.  On cross examination, Bond 
 
 
-9- 
agreed that no pubic hairs belonging to Balko were found on the victim or the 
victim’s clothing.  On redirect examination, Bond testified that Balko stated he 
had not had sex with Sheila in the past and that, a month or two prior to the 
incident, he had asked her to have sex with him and she said she just wanted to 
be friends.  
(12) Balko’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to convict him is 
without merit.  When a defendant claims that the evidence against him was 
insufficient to support a jury verdict, the proper standard of appellate review 
requires this Court to determine “whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the 
evidence in the light most favorable to the [prosecution], could have found the 
essential elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”3  In this 
case, Balko was convicted of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree4 and 
Assault in the Third Degree.5  Our review of the trial transcript reflects that a 
reasonable juror clearly could have found the essential elements of these charged 
                                                 
3Morrisey v. State, 620 A.2d 207, 213 (Del. 1993). 
4DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 769 (2001) (“A person is guilty of unlawful sexual contact 
in the first degree when, in the course of committing unlawful sexual contact . . . the person 
causes physical injury to the victim . . . .”). 
5DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 611(1) (2001) (“A person is guilty of assault in the third 
degree when . . . [t]he person intentionally or recklessly causes physical injury to another 
person . . . .”).  
 
 
-10- 
offenses beyond a reasonable doubt by relying on the testimony of the State’s 
witnesses. 
(13) Balko’s next claim, which was raised for the first time on appeal and 
which we, therefore, review for plain error,6 is that the prosecutor engaged in 
misconduct with respect to his treatment of the victim, the jurors and the 
defendant.  Specifically, he complains that the prosecutor placed his hand over 
Balko’s head when asking Sheila Hitchcock to identify him, asked improper 
questions, had an overly friendly relationship with Sheila Hitchcock and had an 
inappropriate contact with a juror.  We have reviewed carefully the transcript of 
the trial in this case.  We find no basis for Balko’s claim of prosecutorial 
misconduct, no indication that any conduct of the prosecutor resulted in 
prejudice to Balko and no plain error. 
                                                 
6SUPR. CT. R. 8; Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986) (To warrant 
reversal, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to 
jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process). 
 
 
-11- 
(14) Balko’s claim of improper jury instructions is also without merit.7  A 
trial court’s jury instruction may serve as a basis for reversal only if the deficiency 
had the effect of undermining the ability of the jury to perform its duty to return 
a verdict.8  Moreover, the language of jury instructions will not serve as grounds 
for reversible error if they are “reasonably informative and not misleading, 
judged by common practices and standards of verbal communication.”9  We have 
reviewed carefully the jury instructions given by the Superior Court in this case 
and, judged by these standards, there is nothing in the instructions warranting a 
reversal and no indication of any prejudice to Balko in any case. 
(15) Balko next claims that the Superior Court judge ruled improperly 
on evidentiary issues throughout the trial.  The record does not support Balko’s 
                                                 
7At the prayer conference, the Superior Court granted the defense request for 
instructions on the lesser included offenses of Rape in the Second Degree, Unlawful Sexual 
Contact in the First Degree, and Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Third Degree.  The Superior 
Court denied the defense request for an instruction on Rape in the Third Degree.  
8Flamer v. State, 490 A.2d 104, 128 (Del. 1983). 
9Id. 
 
 
-12- 
claim of error.  In fact, the bulk of the judge’s evidentiary rulings were in favor of 
the defense, not the prosecution.  To the extent that there were any erroneous 
evidentiary rulings, Balko has failed to show any prejudice as a result. 
(16) Balko’s next claim, which we review for plain error, is that the 
Superior Court judge hurried the testimony of the witnesses.  The trial transcript 
reveals that, on a few occasions, the judge reminded counsel to move their 
questioning along expeditiously.  The judge also asked the jury whether it wished 
to deliberate past 5:00.  These actions were well within the judge’s discretion in 
overseeing the trial proceedings.10  Moreover, Balko has failed to show that any 
such actions on the part of the judge resulted in any prejudice to him and there 
is no evidence of plain error. 
(17) Balko’s final claim, which we also review for plain error, is that 
Sheila Hitchcock’s communication with the social worker employed by the State 
of Delaware tainted the trial.  The record reflects that the communication was 
the result of concern by a witness of limited mental capacity that she had 
mischaracterized the nature of the defendant’s sexual misconduct.  The scope of 
the communication with the social worker was narrow and there is no indication 
                                                 
10Styler v. State, 417 A.2d 948, 951 (Del. 1980). 
 
 
-13- 
that the Superior Court abused its discretion in disposing of the issue as it did.  
Moreover, Balko has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the 
communication or the manner in which the issue was resolved by the judge and 
there was no plain error.11 
                                                 
11To the extent Balko attempts to raise any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, 
this Court will not decide any such claims since they were raised for the first time in Balko’s 
direct appeal.  Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994).    
(18) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Balko’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We are also satisfied that Balko’s counsel has made a conscientious effort 
to examine the record and has properly determined that Balko could not raise a 
meritorious claim in this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm 
is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  The 
motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
                         
 
 
-14-