Title: Winn v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STEPHEN R. WINN, 
§
§
No. 328, 2002
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
in and for New Castle County
§
Cr. ID No. 0103012308
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: December 17, 2002
Decided: March 19, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 19th day of March, 2003, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
appears to the Court that:
1) Stephen R. Winn appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of first
degree rape, first degree kidnaping, second degree assault, terroristic threatening and
criminal contempt.  Winn contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it
allowed the victim’s prior consistent statement into evidence.  We find the appeal to
be without merit, and affirm.
2) On January 15, 2001, Winn became enraged when his live-in girlfriend,
Donna Cleckley, told him that she wanted to end their relationship.  He punched her
1Lowry v. State, 1992 WL 115944, ** 4 (Del.Supr.) 
2
in the face, then tied her to her bed, beat her with a baseball bat and raped her.  During
the assault, he threatened to kill Cleckley.  When Winn finished raping Cleckley, he
gagged her and left her tied to the bed, while he went out in her car.
3) Cleckley stayed in her home for the next three days and sought no help even
during the times that Winn was out of the house.  When she felt that she had enough
strength, Cleckley went to St. Francis Hospital and then to a battered woman’s shelter.
She later reported the attack to the police.
4) At trial, Winn objected to the introduction of Cleckley’s prior consistent
statement to the police, arguing that the statement was cumulative and unduly
prejudicial.  
5)   The Superior Court acted well within its discretion in admitting Cleckley’s
statement to the police.  Pursuant to 11 Del.C. §3507, a witness’s prior statement is
admissible if it is voluntary and if the witness is available to be cross-examined on it.
It does not matter that the prior statement is consistent with the witness’s in-court
testimony.  “[P]rior statements have independent relevance and may be used as
substantive evidence of guilt.”1 
6) Winn is correct that the prior statement was cumulative in the sense that it
was consistent with Cleckley’s trial testimony.  The statement had probative value,
3
however, because it helped establish Cleckley’s credibility in a case where her delay
in reporting the crimes could cast doubt on her account of the relevant events.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby are, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice