Title: King v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARZETTE KING, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below,  
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
No.  312, 2017 
 
Court Below:  Superior Court  
of the State of Delaware 
 
ID. No. 1606002410A & B   
 
 
Submitted:  September 12, 2018 
 Decided:  September 24, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
On this 24th day of September 2018, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Appellant, Marzette King, appeals from a Superior Court jury verdict 
finding him guilty of Drug Dealing, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, three counts 
of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (PFDCF), three 
counts of Possession of a Firearm By a Person Prohibited, and one count of 
Possession of Ammunition By a Person Prohibited. 
2 
 
(2) 
King makes three claims, the second two raised for the first time on 
appeal.  First, King contends that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion 
for judgment of acquittal on the counts of Drug Dealing and PFDCF because the 
evidence was insufficient to convict him of Drug Dealing—the requisite felony for 
the three PFDCF charges.  Second, he contends that the Superior Court committed 
plain error by allowing the jury to consider the PFDCF charges because the evidence 
was insufficient to show a nexus between the purported drug dealing activity and the 
firearms.  Finally, he contends that the Superior Court committed plain error by 
allowing the jury to consider the Person Prohibited charges because the evidence 
was insufficient to show that he had possession of those items on or about June 3, 
2016, the date specified in the indictment. 
(3) 
We affirm the Superior Court’s denial of King’s motion for judgment 
of acquittal for the reasons given in the court’s bench ruling dated May 10, 2017. 
(4) 
As to King’s second two claims, we find no plain error.  “To warrant 
review on appeal when the issue has not been fairly presented [to the trial court], 
there must be ‘plain error.’”1  “Under the plain error standard of review, the error 
complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the 
                                                 
1 Zhurbin v. State, 104 A.3d 108, 113 (Del. 2014). 
3 
 
fairness and integrity of the trial process.”2  “[T]he 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.”3  There is no such 
error here: the Superior Court’s alleged errors do not amount to “material defects 
which are apparent on the face of the record.”4 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/   James T. Vaughn, Jr   
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
2 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 
3 Id. 
4 Id.