Title: Dale v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTHONY DALE, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Defendant-Below  
§ 
No. 145, 2022 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
 
 
 
v. 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1909010294(N) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 17, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 19, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
This 19th day of July, 2023, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, 
the argument of counsel, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
In December 2021, a Superior Court jury found Anthony Dale guilty 
on two counts of murder in the first degree and one count of attempted murder in the 
first degree.  After, the court imposed three life sentences, and Dale filed this appeal. 
 
(2) 
The sole issue on appeal is whether the Superior Court abused its 
discretion when it denied Dale’s motion to exclude the expert opinion of a 
neurologist on the grounds that it was irrelevant and unreliable.1  We have concluded 
 
1 See State v. Dale, 2021 WL 5232344 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 10, 2021). 
2 
 
that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion and therefore affirm Dale’s 
convictions.  A brief recitation of the relevant background facts and the reasons for 
our decision follows. 
 
 
(3) 
Three armed men walked into the Printz Market on June 7, 2013, shot 
two employees, and left with $200–$300 in cash from the store’s register.  The first 
employee, Behk Suh, was working the check-out counter when the men walked in.  
He was immediately shot in the stomach and arm.  The second employee, Anthony 
“Tone” Berry, was working the deli counter when he was shot in the abdomen and 
jaw.  Berry died from internal bleeding.  Suh lost two organs and some function in 
his left arm.     
 
 
(4) 
Officers searching the store in the aftermath of the crime discovered a 
.22-caliber shell casing behind the deli counter and three .40-caliber shell casings 
near the cash register. 
 
(5) 
Two weeks later Dale was found by police alone in a car with a loaded 
.22-caliber Bersa handgun on the floor.  Dale was arrested for possession of the 
firearm, after which he told the police that his cousin, Maleke Brittingham, had 
borrowed the weapon and was involved in a shooting at the Printz Market earlier 
that month.  This prompted the police to obtain search warrants to obtain Dale’s and 
Brittingham’s DNA and to search their residences. 
3 
 
 
(6) 
The searches were designed to uncover “anything that would pertain to 
[the Printz Market murder/robbery investigation], clothing worn by the suspects, [or] 
currency that was taken from the robbery.”2  But nothing of evidentiary value was 
uncovered, and the case went cold for the next five years.  
 
(7) 
In a January 2014 unrelated investigation, detectives for the New Castle 
County Police Department (“NCCPD”) questioned Dale for more than four hours 
about his involvement in and knowledge about various shootings.  This interview 
was video-recorded. 
 
(8) 
In early June 2018, officers at the Wilmington Police Department 
(“WPD”) interviewed Indi Islam, believed to be Dale’s girlfriend back in 2013.  In 
due course, Islam told the investigators that she acted as the getaway driver during 
the 2013 Printz Market robbery for Dale, Brittingham and Jermaine Goines, all of 
whom entered the market. 
 
(9) 
Dale and Brittingham were indicted on two counts of murder in the first 
degree3 and one count of attempted murder.4 
 
(10) The State disclosed its intent to call two experts to testify on its behalf 
at Dale’s trial.  One was a senior firearms and toolmarks examiner for the Delaware 
 
2 App. to Opening Br. at A970. 
3 One count for intentionally causing Berry’s death and the other for recklessly causing his death 
during the commission of a felony.  See id. at A18–19.   
4 For attempting to cause the death of Bhek Suh.  See id.  Goines died before charges were filed, 
leaving only Dale and Brittingham as co-defendants.  See also id. at A70, A86.   
4 
 
State Police, who would testify that the .22-caliber Bersa handgun seized from Dale 
on June 19, 2013, was the same gun that had fired the .22-caliber shell casing 
discovered near Berry’s body.  The other was Steven M. Bojarski, M.D., an 
experienced neurologist with licenses to practice medicine in five-states, including 
Delaware, who reviewed surveillance footage from the Printz Market and concluded 
that Berry’s shooter favored his left arm in a manner consistent with an injury that 
Dale sustained to his right arm in 2011. 
 
(11) The State had provided Dr. Bojarski with a surveillance video that 
captured glimpses of the robbery/homicide at the Printz Market, Dale’s medical 
records relating to a gunshot wound Dale had suffered in 2011, and the video from 
the 2014 NCCPD interview.  The State then asked Dr. Bojarski if he could offer an 
opinion that one of the individuals depicted in the surveillance video “displays the 
same type of disability”5 as the person in the police interview and as described in 
Dale’s medical records.   
 
(12) In the report written in response to this inquiry and which the State 
provided to Dale in accordance with its discovery obligations, Dr. Bojarski recited 
various facts and stated his opinions to a reasonable medical probability.  From his 
review of the medical records following Dale’s 2011 gunshot wound, Dr. Bojarski 
opined that the area around the wound—“in the right biceps lateral to the humerus 
 
5 Id. at A153. 
5 
 
at the mid humerus shaft”6—and the notation of a possible bone fracture—was 
“consistent with a radial nerve injury.”7  Having observed Dale’s “upper extremity 
movements in both arms”8 during the 2014 NCCPD interview, Dr. Bojarski noted 
that Dale “displayed a right sided wrist drop,”9 a symptom associated with a radial 
nerve injury.  And finally, he noted that the individual depicted in the surveillance 
video, who was holding the gun in his left hand, “exhibit[ed] right upper common 
extremity weakness[,] which could be consistent with a radial nerve injury at the 
radial groove.”10 
 
(13) Dale moved to exclude Dr. Bojarski’s expert opinions on four grounds.  
First, Dale contended that Dr. Bojarski’s failure to employ standard diagnostic 
techniques rendered his “opinion about Mr. Dale’s radial nerve injury”11 unreliable.  
Second, according to Dale, Dr. Bojarski’s observation of the 2014 police 
interrogation provided inadequate foundation for his conclusion regarding the status 
of Dale’s radial nerve.  Third, Dale challenged the reliability of Dr. Bojarski’s 
determination that the suspect in the surveillance video exhibited symptoms 
consistent with the presence of a radial nerve injury at the radial groove.  Fourth, 
Dale argued that the evidence of the 2011 gunshot wound and the 2014 interrogation 
 
6 Id. at A158. 
7 Id. 
8 Id. 
9 Id. 
10 Id. 
11 Id. at A94. 
6 
 
was inadmissible character evidence the probative value of which was outweighed 
by the danger of prejudice. 
 
(14) The Superior Court held a pretrial Daubert12 hearing to aid its 
determination whether Dr. Bojarski’s opinions were admissible under Rule 702 of 
the Delaware Rules of Evidence.  That rule, which governs expert-witness 
testimony, provides that: 
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, 
training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise 
if: 
(a) 
the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge 
will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a 
fact in issue; 
(b) 
the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; 
(c) 
the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; 
and 
(d) 
the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the 
facts of the case. 
 
 
(15) Dale did not contend that Dr. Bojarski was not a qualified medical 
expert witness by knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education.  Dale’s 
principal concern centered on the reliability of Dr. Bojarski’s opinions in the absence 
of an in-person clinical examination. 
 
(16) Dr. Bojarski’s testimony at the Daubert hearing largely mirrored the 
content of his expert report.  When asked how he diagnosed Dale’s injury with a 
 
12 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 
7 
 
“reasonable degree of medical probability,” Dr. Bojarski testified that he used the 
medical records from Dale’s 2011 emergency room visit to develop “a working 
diagnosis” that he “look[ed] to prove or disprove” by observing the symptoms 
manifested by Dale during his NCCPD interview, explaining that “[h]alf of 
[neurological] exam[s] . . . [are] based on observation.”13  He was more equivocal, 
however, as to whether the subject in the surveillance footage demonstrated an injury 
consistent with Dale’s, stating that the extent of what he could conclude from the 
footage was that “[the subject] was using his left hand predominantly” and 
demonstrated a “right upper extrem[it]y [that] was weak, but [] wasn’t paralyzed.”14 
 
(17) The Superior Court issued a letter opinion and order on November 10, 
2021, finding Dr. Bojarski’s testimony relevant and reliable and denying Dale’s 
motion.  The testimony was relevant, the court concluded, because, 
the central issue [in the State’s case] is whether Mr. Dale is the 
suspected gunman seen in the Printz Market surveillance video.  When 
viewed carefully, the subject in the surveillance footage presents with 
hampered movement on his right side.  The abnormal movement and 
position of the suspect’s hand and arm bears remarkable resemblance 
to symptoms caused by Mr. Dale’s previous gunshot injury to his right 
upper extremity.  To aid in this determination, Dr. Bojarski’s testimony 
is relevant because it will assist the fact finder in understanding the 
lingering side effects or range of motion limitations resulting from the 
type of injury [that] Mr. Dale endured.15 
And the testimony was reliable, the court continued, because, 
 
13 App. to Opening Br. at A324–25. 
14 Id. at A319, A321. 
15 Dale, 2021 WL 5232344, at *4 (emphasis in original). 
8 
 
[i]n clinical medicine, standard practice of diagnosing a patient and 
establishing cause is through differential diagnosis.  Differential 
diagnosis refers to the process of determining which affliction the 
patient is suffering from by means of comparing various competing 
diagnostic hypotheses with the clinical observations and findings.  And 
the process of differential diagnosis is one tool Dr. Bojarski engages 
here in deriving his opinion in what is, to be sure, an unusual setting for 
a physician.  But—regarding the review of Mr. Dale’s prior medical 
records and observing his movements in the police interview—it is not 
uncommon for a physician to reach a reliable diagnosis without himself 
performing a first-person physical examination.  Indeed, consulting 
physicians regularly arrive at diagnoses by relying on examinations and 
tests performed by other medical practitioners.  On that score, Dr. 
Bojarski testified that while neurologists do spend a significant amount 
of time on their patient examinations, half of the exam is based on 
observation alone. 
. . .  In other words, Dr. Bojarski did not stray from commonly used and 
accepted principles, i.e., review of medical records (here supplemented 
by examination of video footage), to reach his conclusion that the 
gunman’s movements and limitations demonstrated in the Printz 
Market surveillance video were consistent with that expected from one 
suffering from a radial nerve injury.16 
 
(18) During trial, Islam and Brittingham—both eyewitnesses to the events 
at the Printz Market—testified as to Dale’s involvement in the crime.  Islam testified 
that she drove Dale and two other men to the deli and that they ran back to the car 
ten minutes later arguing, while Dale held a gun in his lap, “whose bullet hit who.”17  
Brittingham stated that he, Dale, and Goins planned the robbery and that, when they 
entered the deli, Dale shot Berry, Goins shot Suh, and Dale emptied the cash-register.  
The eyewitness testimony was in addition to the incriminating expert-opinion 
 
16 Id. at *5. 
17 App. to Opening Br. at A858. 
9 
 
testimony given by the Delaware State Police’s senior firearms and toolmarks 
examiner that the gun seized from Dale two weeks after the robbery/homicide was 
the source of the shell-casings discovered near Berry’s body. 
 
(19) Dr. Bojarski, in his trial testimony, repeated his belief that, based on 
Dale’s medical records and behavior displayed during the NCCPD interrogation 
video, Dale suffered from a radial nerve injury at the radial groove.  But when asked 
whether the subject in the Printz Market surveillance footage demonstrated 
symptoms associated with such an injury, Dr. Bojarski hedged again, stating that 
because “the film [wa]s going by so fast,” all he could say was that the subject “was 
not using his right side so much” and holding “the handgun [] in [his] left hand.”18   
 
(20) Dale argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion by admitting 
Dr. Bojarski’s testimony because his medical opinions were not reached through 
sound methodology.  He also contends that, because Dr. Bojarski’s trial testimony 
strayed from the opinions offered in his initial report and at the Daubert hearing, it 
was “misleading”19 and “no longer relevant.”20  We disagree. 
 
(21) Dale’s first argument—that Dr. Bojarski’s diagnosis of a radial nerve 
injury was unreliable because he never conducted an in-person examination of 
Dale—presents a challenge to the Superior Court’s November 10, 2021 pretrial letter 
 
18 Id. at A950. 
19 Opening Br. at 6. 
20 Id. at 29. 
10 
 
opinion and order.  We have carefully considered the opinion and order, the parties’ 
briefs, and the argument of counsel and find no error in the Superior Court’s analysis 
of this issue.  As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has 
observed, “[d]epending on the medical condition at issue and on the clinical 
information already available, a physician may reach a reliable differential diagnosis 
without himself performing a physical examination, particularly if there are other 
examination results available.  In fact, it is perfectly acceptable, in arriving at a 
diagnosis, for a physician to rely on examinations and tests performed by other 
medical practitioners.”21  Here Dr. Bojarski, a seasoned neurologist, was provided 
with materials—emergency-room medical records from a gunshot wound to the right 
arm and video of a four-hour police interrogation—sufficient to engage in 
differential diagnosis.  Given the widespread acceptance of differential diagnosis as 
a sound methodological tool, it was not an abuse of discretion to find Dr. Bojarski’s 
expert-opinion testimony reliable. 
 
(22) Dale’s second contention on appeal—that Dr. Bojarski’s trial testimony 
differed from his pretrial disclosures and was thus inadmissible for lack of 
relevance—was not raised in the Superior Court.  It is therefore subject to plain-error 
review.22  “Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must 
 
21 Kannankeril v. Terminix Int’l, Inc., 128 F.3d 802, 807 (3d Cir. 1997). 
22 See Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986) (“Failure to make an objection at trial 
constitutes a waiver of the defendant's right to raise that issue on appeal, unless the error is plain.”).  
11 
 
be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and 
integrity of the trial process.”23  It 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.”24  This standard is not met here.  By backing away from any 
definitive statement that the symptoms displayed by the subject in the Printz Market 
surveillance footage were consistent with those associated with a radial nerve injury 
at the radial groove, Dr. Bojarski’s trial testimony was, if anything, more favorable 
to Dale than what was disclosed in his pretrial report and Daubert-hearing testimony 
and, as such, its admission was not prejudicial to Dale’s substantive rights. 
(23) Moreover, even if the trial court erred—plainly or otherwise—by 
failing to strike Dr. Bojarski’s testimony once it diverged from his expert report and 
Daubert-hearing testimony, such error was harmless.  “Where the evidence 
exclusive of the improperly admitted evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction, 
error in admitting the evidence is harmless.”25  There was more than enough 
 
Dale claims to have preserved this issue for appeal by making a pretrial “standing objection” to 
Dr. Bojarski’s testimony.  But that objection was, by its nature, based on the grounds stated in 
Dale’s motion to exclude Dr. Bojarski as an expert witness.  The argument under consideration 
here is based on grounds not raised during trial when Dr. Bojarski arguably opined in a manner 
that was different from the opinions disclosed before trial.  Under such circumstances, a motion to 
strike and request for curative instruction would have been the proper way of allowing the trial 
judge to address the issue and preserve it for appeal. 
23 Id. 
24 Id. 
25 Williams v. State, 98 A.3d 917, 922 (Del. 2014). 
12 
 
evidence here without Dr. Bojarski’s testimony to sustain a conviction, including 
testimony from two eyewitnesses and a ballistics expert who connected Dale to the 
murder weapon. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice