Title: Foreman v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID D. FOREMAN, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
          Plaintiff Below, 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 408, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 1007011701 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: May 21, 2012 
Decided: 
July 11, 2012 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 11th day of July 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), as well as the 
State’s response and motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant, David 
Foreman (Foreman), in May 2011 of one count of Rape in the First Degree, 
two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, one count of Assault in the First 
Degree, four counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a 
Felony, and three counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 
Commission of a Felony.  The Superior Court sentenced Foreman to a total 
of 112 years at Level V imprisonment (with credit for time served), to be 
 
2
suspended after serving 45 years and successful completion of the Family 
Problems program for decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Foreman’s 
direct appeal. 
(2) Foreman’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Foreman’s counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  By letter, Foreman’s attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 
26(c) and provided Foreman with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the 
accompanying brief.  Foreman also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Foreman has raised several issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to Foreman’s arguments, as well as 
to the position taken by Foreman’s counsel, and has moved to affirm the 
Superior Court's judgment. 
(3) The standard and scope of review applicable to the consideration 
of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is 
twofold:  (a) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and 
(b) this Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine 
 
3
whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably appealable issues 
that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.1 
(4) The record at trial fairly supports the following version of events:  
On July 10, 2010, Randy and Karen Mills2 were asleep in their home in 
Seaford, Delaware.  They were awakened in the early morning hours by 
three intruders dressed in black clothing and masks.  The victims were able 
to distinguish the three men based on their height.  The respective heights of 
the intruders were estimated to be 6’, 5’10’’, and 5’4’’.  Randy Mills 
testified that the tall intruder hit him with an object and the two men 
struggled.  The middle sized intruder stood at the foot of the bed holding a 
gun.  The short intruder was on the other side of the bed, sexually assaulting 
Karen Mills.  The tall man then ordered Randy Mills out of the bedroom at 
gunpoint and held him in the living room for approximately fifteen minutes 
while the short man continued to assault his wife in the bedroom.  After his 
wife was brought into the living room, the middle sized intruder held the two 
victims at gun point while the tall man and short man ransacked the house, 
demanding money.  Both victims testified that the tall man threatened to kill 
them.  The intruders took Karen Mills’ knapsack and filled it with the 
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
2  The Court has assigned pseudonyms to the victims pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
7(d). 
 
4
victims’ jewelry and other items.  After the victims were led outside to 
retrieve Randy Mills’ wallet from his car, the three intruders fled on foot. 
(5) Within a day of the home invasion, one of the victims informed 
the police that a stolen cell phone was being used.  Police were able to trace 
the phone to Shania Berrien and from that lead were able to obtain search 
warrants for two residences where they found various items of the victims’ 
stolen property as well as a gun that had Randy Mills’ DNA on it.  Berrien 
testified at trial that she knew Foreman, Deronta Moore, and Brandon Smith.  
The three men had been at her house on the night of the home invasion.  She 
testified that they left her house only to return later with a knapsack full of 
stolen items.  Berrien saw, among the stolen items, credit cards belonging to 
the victims, who were her aunt and uncle.   
(6) Smith and Moore both testified at Foreman’s trial.  Smith 
testified that Foreman, who was the tallest of the three perpetrators, brought 
his gun, broke into the victims’ home through a window and then let the 
other two men in through the kitchen door.  Smith testified that it was 
Foreman’s idea to wake up the victims, and that Foreman struck Randy 
Mills with the gun before handing the gun to Smith.  Moore admitted that he 
committed the sexual assault on Karen Mills while Foreman struggled with 
Randy Mills. 
 
5
(7) Foreman testified on his own behalf at trial.  He admitted 
breaking into the victims’ home.  He admitted having a gun but claimed that 
it was not loaded.  He admitted that it was his idea to wake up the victims.  
He admitted that he struck Randy Mills with a candlestick holder to wake 
him.  He denied striking Mills with the gun and asserted that it was Smith 
who used the gun to hit Mills.  Foreman testified that he did not know what 
Moore was doing because he was struggling with Randy Mills.  His defense 
at trial was that the State had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he 
was responsible, as an accomplice, for Moore’s acts of sexual assault and the 
related weapon offenses. 
(8) In his response to his counsel’s Rule 26(c) brief, Foreman 
enumerates several claims for this Court’s review.  First, he contends that 
the indictment was defective because it charged him as a principal in the 
sexual assaults and related weapon offenses, not as an accomplice.  Second, 
he contends that there was an inadequate foundation laid under 11 Del. C. 
§ 3507 before the admission of the victims’ out-of-court statements, which 
violated his Sixth Amendment rights.  Finally, he contends that the 
prosecutor engaged in misconduct by coaching the victims into making an 
unreliable identification of Foreman.   
 
6
(9) None of Foreman’s claims was argued to the Superior Court in 
the first instance.  Accordingly, we review for plain error.3  Plain error exists 
when the error complained of is apparent on the face of the record and is so 
prejudicial to a defendant’s substantial rights as to jeopardize the integrity 
and fairness of the trial.4 
(10) Foreman’s first claim is that the indictment was defective 
because he was charged only as a principal, and not as an accomplice, with 
respect to all the offenses.  We find no merit to this claim.  Delaware law is 
clear that a defendant who is indicted as a principal may be convicted as an 
accomplice.5  Thus, contrary to Foreman’s position, he was afforded the 
statutory notice required under 11 Del. C. § 275(a).6  Accordingly, we find 
no plain error. 
(11) Foreman’s second claim is that the Superior Court erred in 
admitting the prior out-of-court statements of the victims because the State 
failed to lay the proper foundation and the statements were not properly 
redacted.  We find no support for Foreman’s argument.  The record reflects 
that it was defense counsel, not the prosecutor, who sought admission of the 
                                                 
3 Knox v. State, 29 A.3d 217, 222-23 (Del. 2011). 
4 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 
5 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 275(a) (2007) (providing that “a person indicted for 
committing an offense may be convicted as an accomplice to another person guilty of 
committing the offense.”).  See also Grace v. State, 314 A.2d 169, 170 (Del. 1973). 
6 Webb v. State, 1986 WL 17457 (Del. Sept. 12, 1986). 
 
7
victims’ statements, in order to point out inconsistencies between the 
victims’ statements and their trial testimony.  The Superior Court prompted 
defense counsel to lay the necessary foundation before offering the 
statements into evidence.  The court specifically inquired whether defense 
counsel wanted to redact the statements.  There was no plain error in the 
Superior Court’s admission of the victims’ statements. 
(12) Finally, Foreman contends that the prosecutor engaged in 
misconduct by inducing the victims to change their testimony regarding 
which conspirator held the gun while Moore was sexually assaulting Karen 
Mills.7  There is no support in the record for this claim.  Foreman testified 
that the gun was his, that he brought it to the crime scene, and that he was in 
possession of the gun during some portion of the crime.  Both victims 
testified that the tallest perpetrator, Foreman, initially had the gun but 
handed it to the medium-sized perpetrator, Smith, at a later point in time.  
Their trial testimony differed in some respects from their prior out-of-court 
statements.  Defense counsel, through admission of the victims’ taped 
statements, highlighted the inconsistencies in the victims’ testimony and 
cross-examined them on the issue of when Foreman was in possession of the 
                                                 
7 Foreman seems to argue that he could not have been found guilty as an accomplice to 
Moore’s sexual assaults and weapon offenses unless the jury believed that Foreman was 
in possession of the gun at the time of Moore’s assaults, 
 
8
gun.  It was for the jury to assess the credibility of the witnesses.8  Contrary 
to Foreman’s argument, we find no evidence that the inconsistencies in the 
victims’ recollections of the crime were due to prosecutor misconduct. 
(13) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Foreman’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Foreman’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Foreman could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
  
 
 
 
 
         Justice 
                                                 
8 Monroe v. State, 28 A.3d 418, 430 (Del. 2011).