Title: State v. Caliboso

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
No.  576, 2001
Plaintiff Below,
§
§
Certification of Questions of 
v.
§
Law from the Superior Court 
§
of the State of Delaware in and
ABIGAIL CALIBOSO and JOSE E. §
for New Castle County in
OCAMPO,
§
Def.  ID No.  0004019366
§
Def.  ID No.  0004004124
Defendants Below.
§
Submitted: November 19, 2001
Decided:
November 28, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 28th day of November 2001, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In this criminal case pending in the Superior Court, the
defendants, Abigail Caliboso and Jose E.  Ocampo, are charged with Murder
by Abuse or Neglect in the Second Degree pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 633.  The
defendants have filed a joint motion to dismiss the indictments against them.
The motion to dismiss questions the interpretation of 11 Del.  C. § 1103(c),
which defines the term “neglect.”
1Supr.  Ct.  R.  41(b).
-2-
(2)
By order dated November 13, 2001, the Superior Court certified
the following questions of law to this Court, pursuant to Delaware
Constitution, art.  IV, 11(9) and Supreme Court Rule 41:
A.
Does the phrase “ability and financial means to provide
adequate care and protection” found in 11 Del.  C. § 1103(c)
apply to a charge of Murder by Neglect in the Second Degree
where the act [of] neglect the State alleges is abandonment, or
does the phrase apply only to allegations of neglect where the
State alleges “inadequate care or protection?”
B.
Does the statutory distinction, set forth in 11 Del.  C. §
1103(c), between those with the “financial means” to provide
adequate care and protection and those without “financial
means,” violate the State and Federal Constitutional Equal
Protection Clauses?
C.
Does the word “ability,” in the context of 11 Del C. §
1103(c), encompass both physical and psychological ability to
provide adequate care and protection?
(3)
The Court has considered the questions certified and has
concluded that “important and urgent reasons for an immediate determination
by this Court” do not exist to justify deviating from the ordinary appellate
process.1  The Court, in its discretion, finds that the appellate process is
2State Farm Mut.  Auto.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Dann, Del.  Supr., __ A.2d __, No. 538,
2000 at 2, Per Curiam, 2001 WL 1381268 (Mar.  26, 2001).
-3-
preferable as a matter of the orderly administration of justice, “so that this
Court will have the benefit of the reasoning and analysis of the trial court.”2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Certification of
Questions of Law by the Superior Court is REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
//Randy J.  Holland//
Justice