Title: Godlewski v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ANTHONY GODLEWSKI, 
§
§
No. 591, 2012
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
Court Below:  Superior Court
v.
§
of the State of Delaware,
§
in and for New Castle County
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Cr. I.D. No. 1112016188
Plaintiff Below, 
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted:  June 19, 2013
Decided:  July 18, 2013
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 18th day of July, 2013, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
appears to the Court that:
1) Anthony Godlewski appeals from his convictions, following a jury trial, of
second degree burglary, felony theft, criminal mischief, receiving stolen property, and
second degree conspiracy.  He argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion in
admitting fingerprint comparison evidence because the State did not produce that
evidence until the morning of trial.  We find no merit to this claim, and affirm.
1 Appellant’s Appendix, A-10.
2
2) On December 21, 2011, Amanda Smedley returned home to discover that
more than $1,500 worth of jewelry, money, gift cards and other items had been stolen.
New Castle County Police Officer Keith Snydor investigated the burglary, and
recovered two latent fingerprints at the house – one on a broken window that was used
as a point of entry, and one on a washing machine that blocked the back door.  New
Castle County Police Detective Kevin Murphy compared the recovered prints with
Godlewski’s known prints, and determined that the window fingerprint matched
Godlewski’s right thumb.
3) As the trial began, the State provided Godlewski with copies of fingerprints
that  the State intended to introduce into evidence.  Godlewski objected, arguing that
he  had been denied the opportunity to have his expert determine whether the two sets
of fingerprints were a good match.  The trial court overruled the objection, finding that
there was no discovery violation.
4) Godlewski argues that, under Superior Court Rule 16, the State was obligated
to send him copies of the fingerprints.  His pre-trial discovery letter sought “any
books, papers, documents, photographs . . . intended for use by the state as evidence
in chief at trial . . . .”1  The fingerprint cards are in the nature of photographs, and,
therefore, should have been produced.
3
5) The problem with this argument is that Godlewski was aware of the
fingerprints, and the State’s plan to have an expert testify about the fingerprint match,
from the outset.  The affidavit of probable cause, which led to the issuance of a search
warrant, specifically stated that the police found a fingerprint at the crime scene that
matched Godlewski’s known fingerprints.  At the first case review, two months before
trial, the State gave Godlewski copies of the search warrant, affidavit, and police
report.  Finally, one week prior to trial, the State gave Godlewski copies of the police
expert’s biography and curriculum vitae.  In sum, Godlewski was free to inspect the
fingerprints at any time prior to trial.  He could have made copies and provided them
to his own expert for analysis.  Godlewski did not take any steps to inspect or make
copies of this evidence.
6) The trial court correctly concluded that the State satisfied its disclosure
obligations.  Superior Court Rule 16 requires the State to disclose, among other things,
the existence of statements, documents, photographs,  and other information that the
State intends to use at trial.  In addition, upon request, the State must permit the
defendant to inspect and copy those items.  The State disclosed the existence of
fingerprints, and the fact that it would be relying on an expert to establish the
fingerprint match.  Godlewski knew that the material could be inspected or copied.
The State, therefore, satisfied its Rule 16 obligation.
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby are, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice