Title: Martin v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DARNELL MARTIN, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 30, 2018 
 
 
Defendant Below,   
§ 
 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§  
Cr. ID No. N1702005493 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 26, 2018 
Decided: 
October 12, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of October, 2018, after careful consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1. 
The Superior Court’s rulings rejecting appellant Darnell Martin’s 
arguments that the detention of his vehicle violated 21 Del. C. §701 and was 
thereafter extended by the detaining officers without the requisite level of suspicion 
should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in the Superior Court’s 
bench rulings on December 21, 2017.1 
                                         
1 Suppression Hr’g Tr. 67–68, Dec. 21, 2017, available at App. to Op. Br. A140–41. 
2 
 
 
2. 
Martin’s contention that the Superior Court “erred by failing to make a 
meaningful determination of relative witness credibility,”2 pointing to some 
purported inconsistencies in the arresting officer’s testimony and the Court’s 
statement that it was not prepared to find that the arresting officer had committed 
perjury, is without merit. We reject Martin’s suggestion that the Superior Court 
accepted the officer’s testimony and rejected his simply because he is not a police 
officer. Implicit in the Superior Court’s credibility findings was its conclusion that 
the arresting officer testified credibly while Martin did not. That the Superior Court 
observed that a finding to the contrary would be tantamount to finding that the 
arresting officer had perjured himself does not change the essence of this credibility 
finding—a determination that is well within the province of the trial court to make. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                         
2 Op. Br. 17.