Title: Roane v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
KYLE L. ROANE, 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
§     No. 454, 2003  
 
 
 
    Defendant Below, 
§ 
 
 
 
               Appellant, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          §      Court Below: Superior Court  
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
          §      of the State of Delaware 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
§      in and for New Castle County 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
 
§      Cr. I.D. No. 0301008114 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
§ 
 
 
 
    Plaintiff Below,      
§ 
 
 
 
    Appellee.  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  March 16, 2004 
 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  May 11, 2004 
 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 11th day of May 2004, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties, it appears to the Court: 
 
1) Kyle L. Roane appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, 
of robbery in the first degree.  Roane argues that his conviction should be 
overturned because: (i) the trial judge erroneously admitted evidence that the 
robbery victim had been prescribed antibiotics after Roane bit him; (ii) the 
jury instructions were ambiguous because they did not clearly explain that, 
 
2
as an alternative, Roane could be convicted of misdemeanor theft and assault 
in the third degree; and (iii) the trial judge erroneously refused to instruct the 
jury about the use of force in attempting to escape in accordance with Dixon 
v.  State.1 
2)  On January 13, 2003,  Roane attempted to shoplift several items of 
clothing from the Dollar General Store in Elsmere, Delaware.  While a store 
employee held the door closed to prevent Roane from leaving, another 
employee called the police. Roane attempted to push the door open and, in 
the process, several of the items he was trying to shoplift fell out from under 
his jacket.  Roane then pushed one of the employees, and a struggle ensued.  
James Casula, another employee, tried to subdue Roane by pulling Roane’s 
hat down over his face. During the struggle, Roane bit Casula’s hand, 
causing considerable bleeding.  When the police arrived, they found a pair of 
jeans still concealed in Roane’s jacket. The next day, Casula was treated for 
his bite wound, and was prescribed antibiotics.  
3)  Roane first argues that the trial judge erred in allowing the State to 
introduce evidence that Casula had been prescribed antibiotics as a result of 
the bite.  Roane contends that the testimony about the antibiotics 
prescription was not relevant because Casula had already given substantial 
                                                 
1 673 A.2d 1220, 1226-28 (1996). 
 
3
testimony establishing the nature of the injuries he had sustained.2  Even if 
the evidence was relevant, Roane argues that it was unfairly prejudicial 
because it invited the jury to speculate that Casula might have been infected 
by the bite.   
4)  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this 
evidence.  The fact that Casula was prescribed antibiotics was relevant to 
establish that his physical condition was impaired as a result of the bite. 
Casula’s physical condition was a fact at issue since one of the aggravating 
factors elevating robbery in the second degree to robbery in the first degree 
is a physical injury to a non-participant in the crime.3  “Physical injury” is 
defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.”4  
Moreover, we find no merit to Roane’s contention that the evidence was 
unfairly prejudicial.  The fact that Casula was given antibiotics only 
indicates that he had an open wound that could become infected.  
5) Roane also argues that his conviction should be reversed because 
the jury instructions undermined the jury’s ability to intelligently consider 
whether he should be convicted of robbery in the first degree or the two 
lesser-included offenses of misdemeanor theft and assault third degree. 
                                                 
2 Casula testified, inter alia, that he had received a bite mark and scraped knuckles and that there was 
considerable bleeding. 
3 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 832 (a) (1) (2001). 
4 DEL CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 222 (22). 
 
4
Roane's claim of ambiguity is refuted by the “and/or” option explicitly stated 
on the verdict sheet, which advised the jury that they could find Roane either 
guilty of robbery in the first degree or guilty of the lesser-included charge of 
misdemeanor theft and/or guilty of the lesser- included charge of assault in 
the third degree or not guilty.  In addition, even if the instructions regarding 
the lesser-included offenses of robbery in the first degree were ambiguous, 
the error was harmless.  The jurors were instructed not to consider the lesser-
included offenses until they first decided whether to find Roane guilty of 
robbery in the first degree. Since the jury convicted Roane of robbery in the 
first degree, it never reached the allegedly ambiguous lesser-included 
offenses instructions. 
6)  Roane’s final contention is that the trial judge erred in refusing to 
instruct the jury in accordance with Dixon v. State,5 which held that a person 
who uses no force to obtain property and who, after abandoning the 
property, uses force in an attempt to flee, has not committed the crime of 
robbery.  Dixon, however, is inapplicable.  When the police arrived at the 
store, Roane still had a pair of jeans stuck in the sleeve of his jacket.  
Because Roane did not abandon all of the property before attempting to 
                                                 
5  673 A.2d 1220, 1226-28 (Del. 1996). 
 
 
5
escape, he was not entitled to an instruction concerning the use of force after 
abandoning stolen property. 
 
NOW, THEREOFRE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice