Title: Broughton v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 515, 1999
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 1, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
STEVEN A. BROUGHTON, 
 
 
§ 
§ 
No. 515, 1999 
Defendant Below,  
§ 
Appellant,  
 
§ 
§ 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below: Superior Court 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
 
§ 
in and for Sussex County 
§ 
Cr.A. No. S98-10-0509 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
through 0513 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 28, 2000 
Decided: February 1, 2001 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of February, 2001, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties it 
appears to the Court that: 
1) Steven A. Broughton appeals from his convictions, following a jury trial, on 
charges of first degree rape, first degree kidnapping, attempted first degree robbery, 
third degree assault and terroristic threatening.  He argues that (i) there was insufficient 
evidence to support independent convictions on the kidnapping charge and the 
underlying rape and assault charges; and (ii) the jury instruction on kidnapping was an 
incorrect statement of the law. 
 
 
2 
2) One morning at about 6:00 a.m., Broughton walked into the laundromat 
where Donna Truitt was working.  He grabbed Truitt by the throat and demanded 
money.  When Truitt told Broughton that there was no money, Broughton dragged her 
by the throat into the back room.  Truitt struggled and Broughton squeezed her throat 
so hard that Truitt briefly lost consciousness.  While in the back room, Broughton 
pulled Truitt’s clothes off and raped her.  When he was finished, Broughton warned 
Truitt that he would kill her if she told anyone. 
3) Broughton argues that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to consider the 
kidnapping charge.  In Weber v. State,1 this Court held that, in cases like this, the trial 
judge must decide whether there is sufficient evidence to establish “‘much more’ 
(substantial) interference with the victim’s liberty than is ordinarily incident to the 
underlying crime.”  If not, the kidnapping charge should not be submitted to the jury.  
According to Broughton, the evidence shows that there was no independent restraint of 
Truitt. 
                                                          
 
1Del. Supr., 547 A.2d 948, 959 (1988). 
 
 
3 
4) We review this claim for plain error since it was not presented to the trial 
court.   Under this standard, the error “must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial 
rights as to jeopardize the fairness and  integrity of the trial process.”2  Based on our 
review of the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence of independent 
restraint to submit the kidnapping charge to the jury.  Broughton did not simply subdue 
Truitt, he dragged her by the throat through the laundromat and into a storage room at 
the back of the building.  Although the trial court should have made its own 
determination, as a matter of law,  we find no plain error in its failure to do so.       
5) Broughton also complains that the instruction on kidnapping was incorrect.  
Specifically, he says that the instruction was defective because it did not define 
“substantial” interference with a person’s liberty to mean “much more” interference. 
This claim lacks merit.  The jury instruction defined “restraint” as restriction of another 
person’s movement “in such a manner as to interfere substantially with the person’s 
liberty....”  In addition, the jury was told that it must find that the “restraint of the 
victim was independent of and not incidental to the other charged offenses....”  
                                                          
 
2Wainwright v. State, Del.Supr., 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (1986). 
 
 
4 
Broughton is not entitled to any particular instruction, and, since this one correctly 
stated the law, we find no plain error.3 
 
                                                          
 
3Floray v. State, Del. Supr., 720 A.2d 1132, 1138 (1998). 
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