Title: McGinniss v. State of Delaware Violent Crimes

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENNETH McGINNISS, 
 
 
Appellant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE 
VIOLENT CRIMES 
COMPENSATION BOARD, 
 
Appellee Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 292, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 07A-04-004 
§ 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 2, 2007 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: September 7, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 7th day of September 2007, after careful consideration of 
appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Kenneth McGinnis, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s dismissal of his appeal from a decision of the Violent 
Crimes Compensation Board denying his petition for compensation.  The 
State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment 
on the ground that it is manifest on the face of McGinniss’ opening brief that 
the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
2
(2) 
The record reflects that, on June 24, 2005, a fire broke out in an 
antiques store in New Castle, Delaware.  The store had been burglarized.  
McGinniss occupied the apartment above the store.  McGinniss telephoned 
911 and fled the building.  The contents of his apartment were not damaged. 
McGinniss later was arrested in May 2006 on suspicion of arson and 
burglary related to the June 2005 incident.  He was acquitted of the charges 
following a Superior Court jury trial in November 2006.  Thereafter, he filed 
a petition with the Violent Crimes Compensation Board seeking lost wages 
resulting from his arrest and incarceration on the arson and burglary charges.  
He also sought reimbursement for moving and relocation expenses he 
incurred following the June 2005 fire.   
(3) 
The Board denied McGinniss’ petition on the ground that it did 
not have jurisdiction to award compensation to McGinniss on his claims.  
The Superior Court affirmed that decision.  We find the Board’s decision to 
be manifestly correct.  The Board has statutory authority to award 
compensation in “any instance in which a person sustains personal injury or 
is killed by any crime” as defined in the statute.1  The term “personal injury” 
is defined in the statute to mean “bodily harm; or mental, emotional, or 
                                                 
1 11 Del. C. § 9005 (Supp. 2006). 
 
3
psychological harm; or…pregnancy resulting from the crime.”2  McGinniss’ 
claims clearly did not establish a personal injury for which the Board had 
authority to award compensation.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
2 Id. § 9002(7).