Title: Roten v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BEN ROTEN,
 
§
§
No. 108, 2010
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
Court Below:  Superior Court
v.
§
of the State of Delaware,
§
in and for Sussex County
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Cr. No. 0907011738
Plaintiff Below, 
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted:  August 25, 2010
Decided:  October 4, 2010
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY,  Justices.
O R D E R
This 4  day of October, 2010, on consideration of the parties’ briefs, it appears
th
to the Court that:
1) Ben Roten appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, of assault in a detention
facility.  Roten claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial,
and declaring him an habitual offender.  We find no merit to these claims, and affirm.
2) Roten and John Jordan were inmates at Sussex Correctional Institute, housed
in the same tier, at the time of the incident.  Jordan was repairing a broken wire on his
ear bud by burning the coating off the wire.  The repair process, which was not a
 Appellant’s Appendix, A-102.
1
2
permitted activity, generated some smoke.  Roten got angry because he thought the
smoke would attract attention, and get Roten in trouble.
3) The two men argued, and Roten called out the offense that Jordan had
committed.  In response, Jordan said that Roten was in jail for beating up a woman. A
short time after the argument, Roten came to Jordan’s cell and threw a bucket of
boiling water on him.  Jordan managed to get away from Roten and found a guard who
took him to the medical unit.  Jordan was admitted to the Chester-Crozier Medical
Center Burn Unit and treated for second degree burns on 15 percent of his body.
4) Twice during the trial, Jordan testified that he called out the fact that Roten
was in jail for beating up a woman.  Roten did not object the first time, but moved for
a mistrial after Jordan repeated himself.  The trial court denied the motion, but
promptly instructed the jury to disregard that fact:
Ladies and gentlemen, there was an objection to Mr. Jordan’s last
comment.  Yesterday and today Mr. Jordan told you why Mr.
Roten is in jail . . . .  I will tell you to completely disregard the
reason why Mr. Roten is in jail.  I will also tell you to completely
disregard the fact that Mr. Roten is in jail.  Both of those things are
absolutely irrelevant and they cannot play any factor in your
decision in this case.1
 Smith v. State, 963 A.2d 719 (Del. 2008).
2
 Id. at 722.
3
 Appellee’s Appendix, B-25.
4
3
5) We review the trial court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial for abuse of
discretion.   Generally, an instruction to the jury will cure any prejudice from an
2
improper comment.  A mistrial should be granted only when there is no meaningful,
practical alternative.   We are satisfied that the curative instruction was a sufficient
3
remedy in this case.  The jury already knew that Roten had committed a crime, as he
was incarcerated.  In addition, the prior crime, beating a woman, was not very similar
to the charged crime, throwing boiling water on a prisoner.  Finally, this was not a
close case.  In addition to Jordan’s testimony, the State’s evidence included a letter
Roten wrote to his girlfriend confessing that he “messed a guy up really bad . . . [he]
threw boiling water on him.”  
4
6) Roten also argues that the process by which he was declared an habitual
offender was flawed.  First, he says that he was given insufficient notice that the State
was moving to have him declared an habitual offender.  Second, he argues that the trial
court improperly shifted the burden of proof to Roten.  Third, Roten claims that the
State failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had three prior felony
convictions.
 11 Del. C. § 4214 (b).
5
4
7) Roten’s lack of notice claim fails because it is factually inaccurate.  On the
day originally scheduled for sentencing, the State indicated that it would be filing an
habitual offender motion that day, and that it was unable to do so earlier in the week
because the courts had been closed for three days due to snowstorms.  The trial court,
in its discretion, continued the sentencing, and considered the State’s motion one week
after it was filed.  By statute, the State may file a motion to have a defendant declared
an habitual offender at anytime after conviction and before sentencing.   The State
5
complied with the statute, and Roten had adequate notice.
8) Roten contends that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to
him.  The record belies that claim.  The State produced certified records from North
Carolina to prove that Roten had two prior convictions in that state.  Roten argued that
one of those convictions was a juvenile adjudication.  The certified records did not
support that claim, as the date of the conviction established that Roten was 19 years
old.  The trial court found that the court records satisfied the State’s burden of proof.
Nonetheless, as a matter of discretion, the court allowed Roten to provide any evidence
that would support his claim within a reasonable time after sentencing.  The court was
not shifting the burden of proof to Roten.  It was simply allowing Roten to disprove
what the State had established.  Roten failed to do so.
 Sup. Ct. R. 8.
6
Appellant’s Appendix, A-158.
7
5
9) Finally, Roten argues that the North Carolina records relied on by the State
to establish one of his prior convictions do not conclusively establish that he was
convicted of a felony.  Because Roten did not present this argument to the trial court,
we review for plain error.   The State submitted a transcript of Roten’s plea, in which
6
he swore that he was freely and knowingly entering a plea of no contest to “felony
breaking and entering a motor vehicle and injury to personal property.”   There is
7
nothing ambiguous about this evidence, and we find no plain error.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court
be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
By the Court:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice