IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

STATE OF DELAWARE , ) ) v. ) Cr. ID No. 1402014360 ) DENNIS O. WILLIAMS , ) ) Defendant. )

Submitted: November 19, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2015 Upon Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal DENIED

On October 22, 2014, Dennis O. Williams (“Defendant”) was found guilty by a jury for Possession of Firearm by Person Prohibited (14

- 03

- 0558), and Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited (14

- 03

- 1816). Defendant was acquitted of the charges of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (14

- 03

- 0559) and Reckless Endangering First Degree (14

- 03

- 0561). Defendant was represented by Michael W. Modica.
On Oct ober 27, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. The State has filed its response in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion. This is the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.2 A motion for judgment of acquittal is governed by Superior Court Criminal Procedure Rule 29, which provides that such motions should be presented at the
close of the State’s evidence, or within seven (7) days after the j ury is discharged.

“ The court on motion of a defendant or of its own mot ion shall order the entry of judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment or information after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses .” 1 The standard of review for a motion for judgment of acquittal is whether any rational t rier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all the elements of the crime. 2 The t rier of fact does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence in making its determination. 3 Therefore, “constructive possession may be proven exclusively through circumstantial evidence,” as done in this case. 4 Here, the evidence pres ented in the State’s case

- in

- chief was clearly sufficient to su stain Defendant’s convictions. In his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, Defendant contends the State’s case was based upon speculation. Defendant claims there were numerous people

1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 29 (emphasis added)

. 2 Cline v. State , 720 A.2d 891, 892 (Del. 1998) (citing Davis v. State , 706 A.2d 523, 524 (Del. 1998); Monroe v. State , 652 A.2d 560, 563 (Del. 1995)). 3 Id. (citing Davis , 706 A.2d at 524; Hoey v. State , 689 A.2d 1177, 1181 (Del. 1997); Skinner v. State , 575 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Del. 1990)). 4 Hoey , 689 A.2d at 1181; Skinner , 575 A.2d at 1121.3 within the a rea he was located, and no one witnessed the Defendant possess the weapon or hide it. Defendant also argues there was no forensic evidence presented at trial linking the gun to him. The Court finds that t he State met its burden of proof by providing suf ficient evidence for each element of Possession o f Firearm by Person Prohibited and
Possession of Amm unition by a Person Prohibited

. The parties stipulated in a Joint Exhibit to the fact that Defendant was a person prohibited under Delaware law from posse ssion or controlling a firearm or ammunition on or about the date alleged in the indictment. The State presented evidence at trial showing that , after a gunshot, Defendant was standing in the immediate vicinity of a loaded revolver and one spent shell cas ing. The State presented video evidence depicting Defendant bend ing down and then stand ing up again near the location where the gun was found. The State presented police testimony stating that Defendant was acting suspiciously before and after being take n into custody, for example, by trying to conceal a glove he had been wearing that night. Finally, the State provided evidence showing that Defendant’s associate, Alpha Diallo, had gotten into an altercation with an unknown individual within the same area . The jury could have reasonably concluded that Defendant was illegally in possession of a firearm and ammunition.4 Therefore, upon consideration of the entire record, including all direct and circumstantial evidence, a nd the references therefrom, the Cour t f inds that the State met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of Possession of Firearm by Person Prohibited with respect to Count One of the indictment and Possession of Amm unition by a Person Prohibited with respect to Count Thre e of the indictment. NOW, THERE FORE, this 27th day of January, 2015, Defendant’s Motion for J udgment of Acquittal is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 

# Andrea L. Rocanelli

____________________________________ The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli