Title: Fullman v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KYAIR J. FULLMAN, 
§ 
 
 
§ 
No. 254, 2011 
 
Defendant Below- 
§ 
 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§ 
ID No. 1004012625 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
Submitted:  October 7, 2011 
   Decided:  December 1, 2011 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
This 1st day of December 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Defendant-Below/Appellant, Kyair Fullman, appeals from his 
Superior Court jury convictions for two counts of Robbery First Degree, 
Attempted Robbery First Degree, and Conspiracy Second Degree.  Fullman raises 
one argument on appeal.  Fullman contends that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion in allowing Fullman to be presented to the jury in order to display 
Fullman’s facial scar and forearm tattoos.  Fullman contends that this display 
violated Delaware Rule of Evidence 403 because the prejudice of the display 
outweighed its probative value.  We find no merit to Fullman’s appeal and affirm. 
 
2
(2) 
On the evening of April 16, 2010, Maurice Coles was walking toward 
his house when he observed a burgundy-colored, four-door vehicle with tinted 
windows and a broken right headlight parked in his development.   Three black 
males exited the vehicle and approached Coles.  They asked Coles “[w]here’s 
everything at?” and ordered him to “give it up” as they searched through his 
pockets.  According to Coles, the man standing in front of him stole his blue 
Samsung cellular phone.  At some point, this man also brandished a handgun that 
Coles described as an “uzi.”  This man was taller than the other two men and had a 
scar on the right side of his face near the eyebrow that “was like a Muslim sign 
moon.”  He also had “tattoos, big block lettering on his right forearm.”  The group 
also stole a cigar, a brown Bic lighter, and two Excedrin tablets from Coles. 
(3) 
Jordan Anderson was robbed in a similar manner approximately forty-
five minutes later.  Jordan was walking from Castlebrook Apartments to a nearby 
fitness center when he observed a burgundy-colored, four-door vehicle approach 
with four individuals inside.  Two black males approached, one brandishing what 
appeared to Jordan to be a machine gun.  The individual with the gun ordered the 
other man to take Jordan’s wallet.  The wallet contained several identification 
cards and personal business cards, but no money.  
(4) 
Approximately fifteen minutes later, Craig Anderson was walking his 
dog near Castlebrook Apartments when three black males approached.  One man 
 
3
brandished a gun, which Craig described as “[a]n Uzi Mac-10,” while the other 
two men rummaged through his pockets.  Craig testified that the man with the gun 
was taller than the other two men and had “peach fuzz sideburns.”  The men took a 
candle lighter from Craig’s pocket and then threw it back at him, saying that they 
had mistaken Craig for somebody else.  Craig watched the three men leave in what 
he believed to be a maroon Ford Focus.   
(5) 
That evening, New Castle County Police Officer Trevor Riccobon 
heard a police broadcast report stating that a maroon sedan with one headlight out 
had been implicated in recent robberies.  Riccobon spotted a Hyundai Elantra 
matching the description; the vehicle was occupied by Fullman and co-defendants 
Tyrell Johnson, Perignon Brooks, and Danielle Mead.  After Officer Riccobon 
activated his emergency lights, the driver refused to stop, but the vehicle was later 
cornered by police.  The four occupants were arrested.  Police officers searched the 
vehicle and discovered Jordan Anderson’s business card stuck on the trunk.  The 
officers also found a cigar, Excedrin tablets, a brown Bic lighter, and a blue cell 
phone in the backseat.  A black airsoft gun was found in the front passenger area. 
(6) 
Fullman was charged by indictment with two counts of Robbery First 
Degree, Attempted Robbery First Degree, three counts of Conspiracy Second 
Degree, and Aggravated Menacing.  The State nolle prossed the Aggravated 
 
4
Menacing count, and dismissed two counts of Conspiracy Second Degree.  The 
matter proceeded to a jury trial.   
(7) 
At trial, Coles testified that he observed a scar on the robber in the 
shape of an Islamic crescent and tattoos on the robber’s right forearm that 
consisted of “big block lettering.”  Coles identified Fullman in the courtroom as the 
man who had brandished the gun.  Coles also testified that the block-lettering 
tattoos depicted in a photograph of Fullman taken after his arrest appeared 
“similar” to those he had seen on his assailant.  Coles also identified a photograph 
of the vehicle that Fullman and his co-defendants were arrested in as the “same” 
vehicle that he saw at the scene of the crime. 
(8) 
Jordan Anderson testified that the vehicle in the photograph looked 
similar to the vehicle occupied by the men who robbed him.   Jordan also identified 
his business cards as those that the police found in the vehicle.   Jordan could not 
identify Fullman in the courtroom. 
(9) 
Craig Anderson testified that the vehicle in the photograph taken by 
police looked similar to the vehicle occupied by the individuals who robbed him.   
Specifically, he found that “the taillights are exactly the same.”   Craig also did not 
identify Fullman in the courtroom. 
(10) Immediately prior to resting its case-in-chief, the State requested that 
the Superior Court allow the display of Fullman’s facial scar and forearm tattoos to 
 
5
the jury.  The State’s reason for requesting the display was the discrepancy brought 
out on cross-examination between Coles’ court testimony and his statement to the 
police regarding the gunman’s tattoos.  Defense counsel objected to the display 
under Delaware Rule of Evidence 403. 
(11) After engaging in Rule 403 balancing, the Superior Court permitted 
the State to display Fullman’s scar and tattoos to the jury.  The Superior Court 
stated: 
I am going to allow the defendant to be presented to the jury 
. . . .  With respect to Defendant Fullman’s 403 objection, I do 
think that identification is central to the case; that matters 
relating to the physical appearance of each defendant, 
particularly Mr. Fullman, are very important.  Therefore, the 
evidence is very probative.  And under 403, the probative value 
is not substantially outweighed by considerations of unfair 
prejudice.  So the Court will allow it.  I will say it’s rather 
commonplace, I think, in criminal cases. 
(12) Fullman was convicted of two counts of Robbery First Degree, 
Attempted Robbery First Degree, and Conspiracy Second Degree.  He was 
sentenced cumulatively to twenty years imprisonment at level 5 suspended after 
eleven years for decreasing levels of supervision.   This appeal followed. 
(13) Fullman argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion in 
directing Fullman to display his facial scar and forearm tattoos to the jury.  We 
 
6
review the Superior Court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.1  “An abuse 
of discretion occurs when a court has exceeded the bounds of reason in view of the 
circumstances, or so ignored recognized rules of law or practice to produce 
injustice.”2  In reviewing evidentiary rulings, we recognize that “the trial judge is 
in a unique position to evaluate and balance the probative and prejudicial aspects 
of the evidence.”3 
(14) Fullman contends that his display to the jury was unnecessary and 
unduly suggestive.  Although Coles identified Fullman in the courtroom as the man 
who robbed him, Fullman argues that the later display of Fullman to the jury 
lacked an evidentiary nexus to the evidence of Fullman’s identification because 
Coles was not asked whether the tattoos he observed on the robber on the night in 
question matched the tattoos on Fullman that day in the courtroom.  Without this 
evidentiary nexus, according to Fullman, the later display to the jury resembled a 
judicial identification, which was highly prejudicial because it came immediately 
before the State rested and carried a judicial imprimatur. 
(15) Rule 403 provides, “[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if 
its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, 
confusion of the issues or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, 
                                          
 
1 Wright v. State, 25 A.3d 747, 752 (Del. 2011) (citing Longfellow v. State, 688 A.2d 1370, 1372 
(Del. 1997)). 
2 Id. (quoting Floudiotis v. State, 726 A.2d 1196, 1202 (Del. 1999)). 
3 Smith v. State, 560 A.2d 1004, 1007 (Del. 1989). 
 
7
waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”4  Here, the record 
clearly reflects that Superior Court performed a Rule 403 weighing of the 
probative value of the proffered evidence against the potential for unfair prejudice.  
Since Fullman’s identification—both as a perpetrator of the robbery and the lone 
individual brandishing a gun—remained a key issue in this case, the evidence of 
Fullman’s physical appearance was highly probative.  The Superior Court did not 
exceed the bounds of reason, or so ignore recognized rules of law or practice to 
produce injustice in having Fullman display his facial scar and tattoos.  We find no 
abuse of discretion by the Superior Court in allowing the display of Fullman’s scar 
and tattoos to the jury.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
4 D.R.E. 403.