1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE )

)

 v. ) I.D. No. 2201002540

)

JOSEPH CASALETTO, )

Defendant. )

Order

On Defendant’s Motion for Certificate of Reasonable Doubt – DENIED

Submitted: May 3, 2023

Decided: May 9, 2023

Isaac Rank, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney for the State of Delaware

Joseph Hurley, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant Joseph Casaletto

BRENNAN, J. 
2

Joseph Casaletto (hereinafter “Defendant”) was arrested and ultimately 

indicted for Driving Under the Influence (hereinafter “DUI”) stemming from a 

January 10, 2022, encounter with Middletown Police in which he was found asleep 

behind the wheel of his running Volkswagen Jetta in a controlled turn lane 

throughout multiple cycles of a traffic light.

1

 Defendant was granted leave of this 

Court to file an out of time Motion to Suppress, which was heard on Monday, April 

3, 2023.2 This motion was denied the following day and trial began immediately 

following on Tuesday, April 4, 2023. Mid-trial, Defendant twice moved for a 

mistrial, both motions were ultimately denied. The first motion – based upon a 

reference to an odor of marijuana that was played before the jury from an officer’s 

Body Worn Camera – was denied on its merit, and the second motion was denied as 

moot. The jury rendered a verdict on Thursday, April 6, 2023, convicting Defendant 

of the sole charge of DUI, finding unanimously that the Defendant’s blood contained 

a prohibited alcohol content.3 

Following the jury’s verdict, Defendant filed four (4) motions: Motion for 

Reinstatement of Bail; Motion for Judgment of Acquittal; Motion for a New Trial

and the instant Motion for a Certificate of Reasonable Doubt. The former three

motions have been previously addressed, as Defendant had withdrawn the instant 

1 State v. Casaletto, ID No. 2201002540, D.I. 1.

2 D.I. 19.

3 D.I. 27.
3

motion as premature. On May 3, 2023, all pending motions were denied and 

Defendant was sentenced to 2 years at Level V incarceration, suspended after the 

minimum-mandatory 90 days, for one (1) year at Level III probation and related 

conditions. As such, the Motion for Certificate of Reasonable Doubt is now ripe for 

decision and was orally represented.4 The State opposes Defendant’s motion. 

The legal authority to issue a Certificate of Reasonable Doubt is found in Title 

11, Section 4502 of the Delaware Code. This section, in pertinent part, provides:

No writ of error or writ of certiorari issuing from the Supreme Court in 

any criminal cause shall operate as a stay of execution of the sentence 

of the trial court unless such writ of error or writ of certiorari be sued 

out within 30 days from the date of final judgment in the court below, 

and unless the plaintiff in error obtains from the trial court (or, if the 

trial court refuses, then from 1 of the Justices of the Supreme Court) a 

certificate that there is reasonable ground to believe that there is error 

in the record which might require a reversal of the judgment below, or 

that the record presents an important question of substantive law which 

ought to be decided by the Supreme Court, and unless the plaintiff in 

error furnishes bond to the State, with surety to be approved and in an 

amount to be fixed by 1 of the Justices of the Supreme Court, 

conditioned as prescribed by rule of court.5

In order to obtain a Certificate of Reasonable Doubt, a defendant has 

the burden to either show, “a reasonable ground to believe that there is error 

which might require a reversal, or that there is an important question of 

4 D.I. 38.

5 11 Del. C.§ 4502.
4

substantive law which should be decided by the Supreme Court.”6 This burden 

extends to showing “an error of record that might require reversal or an 

important question of law.”7

Defendant argues three errors of law in support of his application: 1) 

this Court’s denial of his motion to suppress; 2) the prosecutor’s failure to 

redact a portion of the Body Worn Camera which mentions the odor of 

marijuana in Defendant’s vehicle upon post-arrest and was played before the 

jury; and 3) the Court’s ruling prohibiting cross-examination of Julie Willey, 

the Delaware State Police Crime Lab Director, regarding the differences 

between the blood tube manufacturer’s instructions for blood collection 

versus the DUI Blood Collection Kit instructions, which Willey authored. As 

couched, Defendant’s arguments of error fall under the “error of record” 

avenue for relief. 

In order for Defendant to be successful, he must show that any one of 

these alleged errors were “clear, flagrant, manifest, obvious or plain from the 

record.”8 Defendant cannot make such a showing here.

6 State v. Green, 2019 WL 6250437, *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 21, 2019), citing 

Bailey v. State, 352 A.2d 411, 413 (Del. 1976).

7

Id.

8 Bailey v. State, 354 A.2D at 752. 
5

With respect to the motion to suppress, the Court articulated its findings

at the time of the ruling. Defense has not presented any new arguments in the 

instant motion that were not previously presented, nor has he met his burden 

to show the Court made an error of law in its previous ruling or that any 

alleged error was clear, flagrant, manifest, obvious or plain from the record. 

Defendant’s application has re-argued his original position in the suppression 

hearing. The factual evidence deduced at the suppression hearing supports 

the Court’s finding, and no further evidence of an abuse of this Court’s 

discretion has been provided, therefore the first basis for the instant motion is 

without merit.

Defendant next argues that the failure of the Prosecutor to redact a 

statement referencing an odor of marijuana in Defendant’s vehicle on the 

Body Worn Camera, which was played before the jury warrants the requested

relief. This issue was the subject of Defendant’s initial mistrial application 

and prior to ruling, much was explored and the record was developed with 

respect to how the statement came to remain on the recording. The Court 

inquired into all allegations made by Defendant regarding trial preparation 

and the understandings of the parties. In fact, Defendant requested the Court 

obtain the draft transcript of the suppression hearing, which it did, to ascertain 

whether it contained any evidence of any such agreement to remove any 
6

discussion regarding marijuana on the record; it did not. There appear to be

many reasons for this lack of communication between the parties which 

resulted in this evidence before the jury, none of which are necessary to be 

expanded on at this time, but all of which were developed on the trial record 

and touched upon in the Court’s oral ruling denying the mistrial application.9 

Defendant’s instant motion fails to meet his burden to show that the conduct 

of the Prosecutor, or the subsequent denial of the mistrial application was an 

error so “clear, flagrant, manifest, obvious or plain from the record” that it 

warrants the relief sought here.10

With respect to Defendant’s final argument regarding the limitation on 

his cross-examination of Ms. Willey, this, too, was re-addressed by the Court 

in its most recent decision denying Defendant’s Motion for New Trial. While 

here, Defendant cites to a line of case law discussing the confrontation clause 

for the first time in support of his argument, the Court notes that at no point 

in this case either pre or mid-trial were the foundational qualifications of Ms. 

Willey’s expertise challenged. Defendant additionally cites cases in support 

of the well-established importance of relevant cross-examination of expert 

9 As noted at the time of the ruling, a prompt curative instruction was read, the 

reference was minimal, there were no charges related to marijuana and the 

interest of justice did not require the extraordinary remedy of a mistrial. 

10 Id.
7

witnesses. As the Court has previously ruled, based upon legal precedent of 

this very Court, the proffered cross-examination was not relevant here and any 

minimal relevance would be outweighed by the potential for confusion of the 

jury.11 There is nothing raised in Defendant’s instant motion that shows a 

“clear, flagrant, manifest, obvious or plain from the record” error that requires 

the requested relief.

Accordingly, the Motion for Certificate of Reasonable Doubt is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2023.

 

Danielle J. Brennan, Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Isaac A. Rank, Deputy Attorney General 

Joe Hurley, Esquire

11 State v. Bowie, 2022 WL 004005, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 1, 2022).