Title: McCullough v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID McCULLOUGH, 
§ 
 
 
§ 
No. 641, 2009 
 
Defendent Below- 
§ 
 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§ 
I.D. No. 0806033890 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 23, 2010 
   Decided:  July 8, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
This 8th day of July 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
Defendant-below David McCullough appeals his convictions of four 
counts Rape Second Degree.1  On appeal, McCullough argues that the Superior 
Court committed plain error by failing to respond to a jury question asking to see 
the “whole journal” that a witness wrote in prior to accepting the jury’s verdict.  
The record shows that McCullough’s trial counsel made tactical decisions 
regarding the journal and the jury’s question that waived any arguable claim of 
error in this direct appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior 
Court. 
                                          
 
1 11 Del. C. § 772. 
 2
 
(2) 
McCullough met Ann2 on MySpace, a social networking website.  
McCullough contends that Ann’s MySpace page said she was nineteen years old.  
McCullough was twenty-two years old when he met Ann.  In March of 2007, they 
met in person when Ann’s mother took her to the movie theater to meet 
McCullough.  She grew concerned after seeing McCullough and Ann leave the 
theatre together fifteen minutes after entering, confronted them and took Ann 
home. 
 
(3) 
McCullough and Ann met in person again shortly after their first 
meeting in 2007.  At trial, Ann testified that during this encounter they “made out.”  
Ann’s mother discovered that Ann had met McCullough the second time, and 
contacted the police.  At this time, Ann informed McCullough that she was thirteen 
years old. 
(4) 
McCullough and Ann continued to communicate via letters and pre-
paid cell phones in 2008.  In May of 2008, Ann’s mother noticed an instant 
message from McCullough to Ann.  At that point, Ann’s mother contacted the 
police.  Ann claimed that she and McCullough had engaged in sexual activity on 
three occasions in 2008.  McCullough was then arrested. 
(5) 
During trial, Ann testified that she and McCullough had engaged in 
sexual activity on three occasions in 2008, after she had informed McCullough that 
                                          
 
2 Due to the nature of this case, a Pseudonym has been assigned. 
 3
she was thirteen years old.  Ann also testified that she wrote in her journal about 
the three physical encounters with McCullough in 2008.  The State introduced into 
evidence a photocopy of Ann’s journal, which included entries on the dates of the 
three encounters.  The parties agree that the remaining pages of the original journal 
were blank.  McCullough’s counsel did not object to the introduction of 
photocopies of Ann’s journal instead of the original journal. 
(6) 
During jury deliberation, the jury sent a note to the trial judge asking: 
“Can we see the whole journal that [Ann] wrote in?”  The judge informed counsel 
for both parties of the jury note, and indicated that he was inclined to respond “no, 
[] the entire journal is not in evidence and [the jury] should not speculate as to why 
that is or what may be in it.”  Counsel informed the trial judge that the photocopies 
represented all the information written in the journal, and the only pages not 
reflected in the photocopies were several blank pages.  The trial judge asked both 
parties if they wished to provide the jury with the actual journal, and 
McCullough’s counsel informed the trial judge that he did not want the original 
journal introduced as an exhibit.  The trial judge then directed the court reporter to 
perform a search of the testimony to determine if anyone had testified that the 
photocopies accurately reflected the whole journal.  As the court reporter was 
 4
leaving the courtroom to perform the search, the bailiff informed the court that the 
jury had reached a verdict.3 
(7) 
The trial judge noted for the record that the jury question was never 
answered and “one can only assume that the jury did not require an answer” to 
continue its deliberations.  The trial judge then asked, “All right, with that said, 
anything we should take up before we bring in the jury?  [Defense counsel]?”   
Defense counsel responded “no.”  The jury foreperson announced the guilty 
verdicts, and each juror was polled at McCullough’s request.  Each juror affirmed 
the guilty verdicts.  After a presentence investigation, McCullough was sentenced 
to 40 years imprisonment, followed by 2 years of probation.  This appeal followed. 
(8) 
McCullough argues that the trial court committed plain error by not 
responding to the jury question prior to the jury returning a verdict because the trial 
judge had a duty to respond when a jury expresses confusion.  It is undisputed that 
McCullough did not object to the Superior Court’s acceptance of the jury verdict.  
Therefore, his argument is waived unless he can demonstrate plain error.4  “[T]he 
                                          
 
3 The judge noted for the record: 
THE COURT: And just to close out the record, as we exited the 
courtroom, and even before the court reporter was able to get on the 
elevator to go downstairs to begin the search that she was asked to 
perform, the bailiffs advised that the jury had returned with a verdict.  So, 
the question was never answered.  In fact, there was no further contact 
with the jury after the note presented to the Court.  So, one can only 
assume that the jury determined it did not require an answer to the 
question to continue its deliberation. 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 8; Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 
 5
doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects which are apparent on the face 
of the record; which are basic, serious and fundamental in their character, and 
which clearly deprive an accused of a substantial right, or which clearly show 
manifest injustice.”5  “[T]he error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to 
substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”6 
(9) 
It is well-settled that plain error is predicated upon oversight, as 
opposed to a tactical decision of counsel.7  McCullough’s trial counsel made 
strategic decisions throughout the trial to prevent the introduction of the original 
journal in its entirety.  He did not object to the introduction of photocopies of the 
journal entries when the actual journal was available.  He expressly objected to 
providing the actual journal in response to the jury’s question during deliberations.  
Finally, when the trial judge asked McCullough’s trial counsel whether there was 
“anything we should take up before we bring in the jury”, he answered “no”.  By 
making these tactical decisions at trial, McCullough has waived any arguable claim 
of error in this direct appeal.8  
 
                                          
 
5 Wainwright, 504 A.2d at 1100. 
6 Id. 
7 Johnson v. State, 983 A.2d 904, 923 (Del. 2009); Keyser v. State, 893 A.2d 956, 961 (Del. 
2006); Bell v. State, 1993 WL 169143, at *3 (Del. May 3, 1993). 
8 Wright v. State, 980 A.2d 1020, 1024 (Del. 2009). 
 6
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice