Title: Horne v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KHALID HORNE, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 363, 2002 
 
 
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. 0107022453 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  January 14, 2003 
Decided:  February 5, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 5th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties 
it appears to the Court that: 
 
1. 
In February 2002, a Superior Court jury convicted appellant, Khalid 
Horne of Trafficking in Cocaine,1 Possession With the Intent to Deliver a Narcotic 
Schedule II Controlled Substance (cocaine),2 Possession With Intent to Deliver a 
Non-Narcotic Schedule I Controlled Substance (MDMA, also known as 
“Ecstasy”),3 Possession With Intent to Deliver a Non-Narcotic Schedule I 
                                          
 
1 16 Del. C. 4753A(a)(2)(a). 
2 16 Del. C. § 4751. 
3 16 Del. C. § 4752. 
Controlled Substance (marijuana),4 Possession of Drug Paraphernalia,5 and 
Resisting Arrest.6  In this appeal, Horne presents one claim: the evidence presented 
at trial was insufficient to establish that the cocaine weighed in excess of 5 grams.   
2. 
The standard of review in assessing an insufficiency of evidence claim 
is whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most 
favorable to the State, could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.7   
 
3. 
To be convicted of Trafficking in Cocaine, a defendant must have 
possessed five or more grams of a mixture containing cocaine.  Horne argues that 
the trial judge erred because of failing to properly consider the margin of error of 
the scale used to weigh the drugs.   The State chemist testified he weighed the 
cocaine on three separate occasions.  Each time the cocaine mixture weighed 5.01 
grams – just enough to receive the mandatory minimum of three years 
imprisonment.  The State chemist also testified that: (i) the scale had a potential 
margin of error of 1% to 5%; (ii) the scale was working properly; and (iii) the scale 
is calibrated twice per year.   
4. 
The trial judge concluded in a written order denying Horne’s motion 
for judgment of acquittal that “it was entirely unclear whether the “error rate” to 
which [the State chemist] referred represented the percentage of all the scale’s 
                                          
 
4 16 Del. C. § 4752. 
5 16 Del. C. § 4771. 
6 11 Del. C. § 1257. 
7 Monroe v. State, 652 A.2d 560, 563 (Del. 1995). 
readings which might be incorrect or the percentage or error (or variance) inherent 
in each individual reading.  This was not clarified on cross-examination or 
otherwise.”8  The trial judge further concluded that defense counsel explored 
various means to question the accuracy of the State chemist’s determination with 
respect to the weight of the cocaine during cross-examination and the jury was free 
to either accept or reject the chemist’s testimony.9  We agree with the sound 
reasoning of the trial judge and conclude that there was sufficient evidence to 
support the jury’s conclusion that the cocaine mixture weighed in excess of 5 
grams.  Accordingly, the defendant’s appeal is without merit.   
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 
 
 
 
                                          
 
8 Horne v. State, Del. Super., No. 0107022453, 2001, Slights, J. (March 4, 2001). 
9 Id.