Title: Cummings v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JACQUELINE CUMMINGS,  
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 401, 2003 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
)  Cr. ID. No. 0211015387 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  March 23, 2004 
Decided:  March 25, 2004 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, STEELE, and 
JACOBS, Justices, constituting the Court en banc. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 25th day of March 2004, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, 
it appears to the Court as follows: 
 
1. 
On May 29, 2003, a New Castle County jury convicted Appellant 
Jacqueline Cummings of felony theft.  A Superior Court judge sentenced her to 
two years at Level IV home confinement suspended after six months for probation 
and approximately $4,800 in restitution. 
 
2. 
On September 19, 2002, Appellant Jacqueline Cummings visited the 
home of her friend William Higgins, who lived with his older sister, Carol Malone.  
Higgins was in his mid-thirties, mildly retarded but employed and highly 
 
2
functional in daily living tasks.  In early October, Malone discovered valuable 
jewelry missing.  A police investigator determined that Cummings pawned 
similarly described jewelry on September 19, 2002.   
 
3. 
Cummings appeals her conviction, contending that the trial judge 
excluded relevant evidence that Malone had her brother arrested just before his in-
court testimony.  Cummings focused her defense on the theory that Higgins had 
stolen the jewelry from his sister and then gave it to Cummings as a gift.  Higgins 
denied stealing his sister’s jewelry and also denied that he had pawned a missing 
Sony Playstation 2 belonging to his sister.  At trial, Higgins admitted that he had 
lied in earlier testimony about pawning the Playstation 2.  Cummings later sought 
to introduce the fact that Higgins had been arrested at the direction of Malone after 
an altercation at their house.1  We review a trial judge’s ruling on the admissibility 
of evidence for abuse of discretion.2  The trial judge’s ruling that Malone’s 
accusation about her brother that resulted in his arrest was irrelevant was not an 
abuse of discretion.  Neither the arrest nor Malone’s motive have any probative 
value bearing on the issues in this case. 
                                          
 
1 Court Transcript at A-18:  (sidebar conference)  
Mr. Boyer: This information is based on—I don’t know if this is correct.  Apparently there was a 
big argument with her brother, and she did have him arrested…. 
The Court: The relevance of that might be? 
Mr. Boyer: Relevance would be that, you know, her power of control over him, or power over 
him. 
The Court: I’ll sustain the objection. 
2 Howard v. State, 549 A.2d 692, 693 (Del. 1988). 
 
3
 
4. 
Cummings next asserts that the trial judge violated her Constitutional 
right to present evidence by barring testimony from her 12-year-old son about his 
recollection of the gifts given by Higgins to his mother.  D.R.E. 403 states that, 
although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially 
outweighed by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless 
presentation of evidence.  Here, the trial judge, after voir dire of the son, found that 
the testimony would be irrelevant and cumulative.3  The record supports the trial 
judge’s action refusing to admit this evidence. 
 
5. 
Finally, Cummings contends that the prosecutor made remarks during 
trial that deprived Cummings of a fair trial.  During cross-examination, Cummings’ 
mother suggested that her daughter and Higgins had a “mixed up” relationship and 
that Higgins was a “lonely man.”  The Prosecutor remarked “Sounds that way, 
sounds like somebody is being manipulated.” Because there was no objection by 
defense counsel, we review for plain error.  For us to find plain error, the remark 
must have been so clearly prejudicial to Cummings’ substantial rights that they 
deprived her of a fair trial.  Nothing in the record supports a finding that 
                                          
 
3 Court Transcript at A-33: 
The Court: Any information in which this young child can provide has already been testified to 
and I think would be cumulative.  He does not recall any events in the unique time frame of 
September of 2002.  In fact, he believes they weren’t even seeing each other at that point in time.  
And there’s been no evidence to reflect he was present at that juncture in which these gifts were 
allegedly given…. 
 
4
Cummings was denied a fair trial.  Ample, objective evidence in the record 
supported the State’s contention that Cummings manipulated Higgins.4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 
4 Hunter v. State, 815 A.2d 730, 732-738 (Del. 2002).