Title: Matter of the State of Delaware

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN 
THE 
MATTER 
OF 
THE 
PETITION OF THE STATE OF 
DELAWARE FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 244, 2002 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June  27, 2002 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 10, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 10th day of July 2002, upon consideration of the State’s petition 
for a writ of mandamus and the response thereto filed by the Office of the 
Public Defender, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The State seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court 
to issue a writ of mandamus directed to a judge of the Superior Court.  The 
State requests that the Superior Court judge be directed to vacate an order 
entered in State v. Duane Hardy, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 0104019960, 
which held that the prosecutor in that case could not use criminal history and 
motor vehicle information contained in the Delaware Justice Information 
System (DELJIS) during jury voir dire and selection.  The Superior Court 
held that the Jury Selection and Service Act, DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, ch. 45, 
and the jury selection plan adopted by the Superior Court pursuant to DEL. 
 
2
CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 4507 precluded the State’s use of such information 
during the jury selection process.  
(2) 
This Court, in its sound discretion, may issue an extraordinary 
writ of mandamus if the petitioner can establish: (i) a clear right to the 
performance of a duty by the trial court; (ii) no other adequate legal remedy 
is available; and (iii) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to 
perform its duty.1  In the absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal 
or failure to act, this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a 
trial court to perform a particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a 
particular way, or dictate the control of its docket.2  Thus, the petitioner must 
be able to demonstrate a “clear and indisputable” entitlement to the writ.3   
(3) 
Given these standards, we find it manifest that the State’s 
petition fails on its face to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue 
an extraordinary writ of mandamus.  Although the State asserts that the use 
of DELJIS information during jury selection is “a long-standing practice in 
this State,” the State offers nothing to demonstrate that it has a “clear and 
indisputable” right in this regard.  Moreover, the State concedes that the “a 
variety of practices has developed among the several Superior Court judges 
                                                 
1 In re State, 616 A.2d 292, 293 (Del. 1992). 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 In re State, 603 A.2d 814, 815 (Del. 1992). 
 
3
about prosecutors’ use of DELJIS information,” which further undermines 
the State’s position that its entitlement to a writ in this case is clear and 
indisputable.  Accordingly, because the State has failed to demonstrate a 
clear right to the performance of a duty, the petition for a writ of mandamus 
must be dismissed.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice