Title: Benson v. Delaware
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 380, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 1, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SIRRON BENSON, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Defendant-Below,  
 
§ 
No. 380, 2013 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below: 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Superior Court of the State 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of  Delaware, in and for   
 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. I.D. 1107007485 
 
Plaintiff-Below 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  October 15, 2014 
Decided:  December 1, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
 
 
Upon appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware.   
AFFIRMED. 
 
 
Peter W. Veith, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant-
Below, Appellant. 
 
 
 
Maria T. Knoll, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, 
Attorney for Plaintiff-Below, Appellee. 
 
 
 
HOLLAND, Justice: 
 
 
 
2 
 
This is an appeal from a final judgment of convictions that was entered by 
the Superior Court.  Following a six-day trial, a jury convicted Sirron Benson 
(“Benson”) of Murder First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony in connection with the July 3, 2011 shooting death of 
Braheem Curtis.  Benson was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment as to 
Murder First Degree and twenty years at Level V to be served consecutively as to 
Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. 
Benson raises two issues in this direct appeal.  First, Benson contends that it 
was plain error for the trial judge not to issue a curative instruction sua sponte 
when the prosecutor, in his rebuttal summation, stated that Benson’s intent to cause 
death could be inferred from the weapon used to perpetrate the crime.  Second, 
Benson submits that the trial judge committed reversible error by failing to give a 
cautionary instruction relating to the testimony of an informant witness who was 
receiving a benefit from the State in exchange for his testimony. 
We have concluded that neither of Benson’s arguments has merit.  
Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court must be affirmed. 
Facts1 
On July 3, 2011, people were congregating outside in the area of Ninth and 
Kirkwood Streets on the east side of Wilmington.  They were conversing with one 
                                                 
1 This factual recitation is taken from Benson’s Opening Brief. 
3 
 
another and setting off fireworks in anticipation of the upcoming July Fourth 
holiday.  Among those gathered were Benson; decedent Braheem Curtis (“Curtis”); 
Donnie Stephens; Barbara Stephens; Shirl Williams; and Shelly Cannon.  In the 
midst of the fireworks being set off, an argument erupted between Benson and 
Curtis.  In the course of the argument, Benson told Curtis to stop with the 
fireworks or else he would go and “get [his . . .] gun.” 
Following the argument, Benson, who was wearing blue jeans and a white t-
shirt, left the area walking up Ninth Street toward his residence.  Benson’s 
argument with Curtis and his departure was observed by numerous bystanders who 
were also gathered nearby.  Shortly after leaving the area, Benson returned, raised 
his arm and fired a single shot at Curtis causing him to fall to the ground.  Benson 
continued walking toward Curtis and fired a second shot at him while he lay on the 
ground.  After firing the second shot, Benson continued walking up Ninth Street 
toward Lombard Street where he discarded the weapon.   
Robin Unthank, who resides at 810 Lombard Street, reported to police that 
she observed an individual wearing blue jeans and a white t-shirt run past her 
residence and throw a black object that appeared to be a gun up onto the roof.  
Unthank’s report came in shortly after the reported shooting of Braheem Curtis.  
Sergeant Hauk of the Wilmington Police Department responded and recovered a 
.45 caliber Ruger Blackhawk revolver from the roof of Unthank’s residence. 
4 
 
As Benson and Curtis argued, a bystander had called 911 to complain about 
the fireworks.  A patrol unit was dispatched to respond to the fireworks complaint.  
Immediately after the shooting, a bystander flagged down an officer who was on 
patrol and reported the shooting at Ninth and Kirkwood.  Officer Malloy of the 
Wilmington Police Department arrived on scene to find Braheem Curtis laying on 
the ground, unresponsive, and suffering from an apparent gunshot wound to the 
chest.  Officer Malloy provided first aid until Emergency Medical Services arrived. 
Upon arrival, Emergency Medical Services placed Curtis into an ambulance 
and transported him to Christiana Hospital, where he was later pronounced dead 
from a gunshot wound to the chest.  While undergoing treatment at Christiana 
Hospital, a single projectile was recovered and turned over to the Office of the 
Chief Medical Examiner.  Curtis’ body and personal effects were transferred to the 
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner where an autopsy was conducted.  In the 
course of the autopsy, a second projectile was recovered from Curtis’ chest cavity.  
The Medical Examiner’s autopsy revealed Curtis’ cause of death to be 
exsanguination caused by a gunshot wound to the thoracic aorta.  Benson was 
subsequently arrested and charged with the Curtis’ death.  He was later indicted for 
intentional Murder First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony. 
5 
 
At trial, the State called Barbara and Donnie Stephens, Shirl Williams and 
Shelly Cannon as eye witnesses.  Each witness testified that they were out in the 
area of the shooting on the right in question, and that they observed the events as 
they occurred.  Each witness also testified that they were familiar with Benson 
from the neighborhood, that he was wearing blue jeans and a white t-shirt on the 
night in question, and that he was in fact the individual who shot Curtis.  The State 
also introduced testimony of investigating and responding police officers; 
responding EMS personnel; DNA experts; a ballistics expert; Benson’s former 
cellmate; and the pathologist who performed the autopsy on Curtis. 
The State’s ballistics expert, Carl Rone (“Rone”) testified that the projectiles 
recovered from Curtis’ body were fired from a .45 caliber pistol.  He further 
testified that the weapon from which the bullets were fired had conventional, right-
twist rifling.  Rone’s testimony also established that the weapon recovered from 
the rooftop of 810 Lombard was a .45 caliber revolver that had conventional, right-
twist rifling and that the recovered projectiles were consistent with being fired 
from this type of weapon.  Rone further testified, however, that the recovered 
projectiles were too damaged to be tested to the degree necessary to determine that 
they had been fired from the recovered weapon.  At no time during the State’s 
case-in-chief did it establish the lethality of the recovered weapon versus that of 
other weapons, nor did it establish that Benson had other firearms available to him. 
6 
 
During its case-in-chief, the State also called David Lawhorn (“Lawhorn”) 
to testify as to the substance of conversations that he had with Benson while the 
two were incarcerated together.  Lawhorn and Benson were cellmates between 
January and August 2012.  At the time of Benson’s trial, Lawhorn had pleaded 
guilty to multiple burglaries and had been sentenced.  Lawhorn testified that 
Benson had confessed to having shot and killed Curtis, discarding the gun on a 
nearby rooftop, and fleeing to a nearby apartment complex and later to Dover.  
Lawhorn acknowledged that his testimony for the State at Benson’s trial was in 
exchange for the later filing of a substantial assistance motion from which 
Lawhorn stood to benefit.  
In its summation, the defense argued that the evidence was not sufficient to 
prove that Benson had the requisite intent to sustain a verdict of guilty of Murder 
First Degree.  The defense argued that in light of Benson’s youth and 
impulsiveness, and the inconclusiveness of the physical evidence, that the only 
homicide offenses that could be sustained by the evidence were Murder Second 
Degree, Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide.  All of these offenses 
required a lesser mental state than intent. 
In its rebuttal summation, the State argued, inter alia, that the size of the gun 
and bullets involved in the shooting were proof that Curtis was intentionally killed.  
The prosecutor also mentioned that a witness had testified that Curtis was writhing 
7 
 
about on the ground when Benson shot him a second time, an assertion Benson 
now submits was not supported by the testimony or evidence.  Benson’s trial 
attorney did not object to the State’s remarks when they were made and the trial 
judge did not intervene sua sponte. 
Following the closing arguments, the Superior Court issued its final 
instructions to the jury.  Those jury instructions informed the jury of the necessary 
elements which must be proven to sustain guilty verdicts for the indicted offenses 
as well as the lesser included offenses.  The jury instructions also set forth the 
burdens of proof and informed the jury that questions and remarks by counsel were 
not evidence and that deliberations should only consider witness testimony and the 
evidence that was admitted at trial.  Following two and a half hours of deliberation, 
the jury returned verdicts of guilty as to Murder First Degree and Possession of a 
Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. 
Prosecutor’s Closing Comments  
Benson’s first argument is that in the State’s rebuttal closing argument, the 
prosecutor made impermissible inflammatory remarks stating his own opinion 
regarding Benson’s intent to kill based upon the size of the firearm.  There was no 
objection to those remarks by Benson’s trial attorney.  This Court reviews claims 
8 
 
of prosecutorial misconduct to which there was no such objection at trial for plain 
error.2   
In applying the plain error standard, this Court will first review the record de 
novo to determine whether prosecutorial misconduct has in fact occurred.3  If the 
Court finds no error, the analysis ends.4  If, however, the Court finds the prosecutor 
erred, the Court applies the Wainright standard,5 under which, “plain error is 
limited to material defects which are apparent on the fact of the record; which are 
basic, serious, and fundamental in their character, and which clearly deprive an 
accused of a substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.”6   
In order to prove that Benson was guilty of First Degree Murder, the State 
was required to prove that he intentionally killed Curtis.  Intent must usually be 
inferred from the actions of the perpetrator.7  The intent necessary for First Degree 
Murder may be inferred from the type of weapon used, the manner in which it was 
used, the type of wound inflicted and the events leading up to and immediately 
                                                 
2Baker v. State, 906 A.2d 139, 151 (Del. 2006) (“[W]here defense counsel fails to raise any 
objection at trial to allege prosecutorial misconduct and the trial judge fails to intervene sua 
sponte, we review claims of prosecutorial misconduct on appeal for plain error.” (emphasis in 
original))). 
3 Id. 
4 Id. 
5 Id. 
6 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986) (citations omitted). 
7 Brown v. State, 233 A.2d 445, 447 (Del. 1967). 
9 
 
following the death.8  With regard to intent, the trial judge instructed the jury in 
Benson’s case, as follows: 
 
State of mind.  One element of a criminal offense 
is the defendant’s state of mind.  It is difficult to know 
what is going on in another person’s mind.  Therefore, 
you are permitted to draw an inference, or reach a 
conclusion, about the defendant’s state of mind based on 
the facts and circumstances surrounding the act the 
defendant is alleged to have done. 
 
In addressing Benson’s state of mind, the prosecutor commented: 
 
Because the most important evidence, the proof that 
leaves you beyond all doubt of his intention came from – 
look at the size of this gun, a .45 caliber gun.  It’s no 
peashooter, as they say.  It’s not a BB gun.  It’s not a 
small gun.  Look at the bullets.  They’re in evidence.  
Look how big they are.  This is a weapon to kill 
somebody.  When you shoot somebody one time with a 
weapon this large, do you think it’s their intent – can you 
infer from that their intent to shoot to kill them?  
Absolutely. 
 
But again, that’s not all you have here.  Right?  Because 
he not only shot him.  Because if his conscious object 
and purpose was to hurt him, he did that with the first 
shot.  He did that with the first shot.  Braheem went 
down on the ground.  [ ]  He could have just walked on or 
ran on or whatever.  But he didn’t do that.  Because you 
                                                 
8 State v. Diaz, 679 A.2d 902, 916 (Conn. 1996); State v. Raguseo, 622 A.2d 519, 523-24 (Conn. 
1993); State v. Rokus, 483 N.W.2d 149, 154-55 (Neb. 1992) (“[No one could] argue that a 
hollow-point bullet fired from a .44 Magnum is not a life-threatening projectile.  Intent to kill 
may be inferred from deliberate use of a deadly weapon in a manner reasonably likely to cause 
death.”); Williams v. State, 804 S.W.2d 346, 347-48 (Ark. 1991); Parker v. State, 717 S.W.2d 
800, 801 (Ark. 1986); State v. Hamilton, 478 So.2d 123, 128-29 (La. 1985); Domanski v. State, 
665 S.W.2d 793, 798 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983) (stating that every case of murder presents a different 
factual situation where the State must establish the existence of intent to kill which may be 
inferred by the mode of killing, whether by a firearm that is deadly per se, or the manner in 
which a weapon other than a firearm is used). 
10 
 
remember what the testimony was.  He shot him.  And 
when he was down, he made sure he was going to kill 
him because he points down and shoots him again.  And 
how is that not intent to kill somebody? 
 
In closing argument, a prosecutor “is allowed and expected to explain all the 
legitimate inferences of the [defendant’s] guilt that flow from [the] evidence.”9  
The size of the weapon in this case was a fact in evidence which the jury could 
logically consider in its deliberation.  In Johnson v. State,10 the Texas Court of 
Appeals considered whether a knife could be used as a deadly weapon and 
determined that, although a knife may not be a deadly weapon per se, a jury may 
consider all of the facts of the case, “and the State can prove, even without expert 
testimony, that a particular knife is a deadly weapon by showing its size, shape, 
sharpness, the manner of its use, and its capacity to produce death or serious bodily 
injury.”11   
In Benson’s case, the prosecutor argued an inference that could be logically 
drawn from the evidence - a large gun and bullets is circumstantial evidence of 
Benson’s intangible intent to kill.  The prosecutor’s argument referred to the 
physical evidence, including the size of the gun and the bullets.  Those items were 
admitted into evidence and reviewable by the jury, which was free to accept or 
reject the prosecutor’s argument.  The record reflects that the prosecutor’s closing 
                                                 
9 Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 204 (Del. 1980). 
10 919 S.W.2d 473 (Tex. Ct. App. 1986). 
11 Id. at 477. 
11 
 
comments in Benson’s case were not improper.  Accordingly, there was no plain 
error.   
Jury Instructions 
Benson’s second argument is that by failing to instruct the jury that they 
should treat the testimony of a jailhouse informant, David Lawhorn, with “great 
care and caution,” the trial judge committed reversible error.  There was no 
objection at trial to the jury instructions that were given.  Therefore, this argument 
is also reviewed for plain error. 
Lawhorn testified that from January through August 2012, while he was 
incarcerated at Howard R. Young Correctional Facility for pending burglary 
charges, he was Benson’s cellmate.  Lawhorn testified that Benson told him that on 
July 3, 2011, he and a bunch of friends were partying and shooting off fireworks 
on Kirkwood Street when he got into an argument with Curtis.  Benson said he was 
going to go home and get his gun, but his friends talked him out of it.  Benson left, 
but returned and got a .45 caliber revolver from one of “his boys” and shot across 
the street, hitting Curtis in the chest.  When Curtis grabbed his chest and fell to the 
ground, Benson ran to him and shot him again and then left, throwing the gun onto 
a rooftop as he ran towards Bethel Villa.  From there, Benson’s brother, Lovey, 
took him to Dover.   
12 
 
In his direct testimony, Lawhorn stated that prior to testifying, he had pled 
guilty to multiple burglary charges and received a four and half year sentence and 
had a prior conviction for Robbery First Degree.  Lawhorn also acknowledged that 
in return for his agreement to testify truthfully against Benson he understood that 
he would receive substantial assistance from the State in reducing his sentences.  
On cross-examination, Benson reviewed with Lawhorn his prior convictions for 
burglary and robbery, the basis of his knowledge and his motivations for testifying. 
During the prayer conference, the parties discussed Lawhorn’s testimony.  
The trial judge noted that she would give the “witness’ conviction for a crime” 
instruction in light of Lawhorn’s testimony.  Benson’s counsel also told the trial 
judge that he was unable to find and was unaware of a “super-duper cautionary 
instruction” similar to the accomplice liability instruction in Bland v. State12 that 
would apply to Lawhorn’s informant testimony.  Benson’s counsel stated that he 
was bringing the issue up “just to make sure [he was] not missing something.”   
The trial judge responded that counsel was free to submit an instruction for 
consideration.  The State commented that the “credibility of witnesses’” instruction 
already informed the jury to consider the motivation for a witness’ testimony.  The 
record reflects that Benson’s counsel did not submit a follow-up instruction and 
                                                 
12 263 A.2d 286, 288-89 (Del. 1970). 
13 
 
did not object to the instructions that were given.  As to the credibility of the 
witnesses, the Superior Court instructed the jury as follows: 
You are the sole judges of the credibility of witnesses 
and of the weight to be given to their testimony.  You are 
to judge the credibility of all of the witnesses who have 
testified before you.  And police officers are witnesses 
just like anybody else, and you should judge their 
credibility, just as you would any other witness. 
 
For each witness, you may consider the following 
factors:  the circumstances under which the witness 
obtained the knowledge, the strength of memory, the 
opportunity for observation, their reasonableness or 
unreasonableness of the testimony, the consistency or 
inconsistency of the testimony, the motivations of the 
witness, whether the testimony has been contradicted, 
whether the witness has any bias or prejudice or interest 
in the outcome of the case, the manner or behavior or 
demeanor of the witness on the witness stand, the 
apparent truthfulness of the testimony, and all other facts 
and circumstances shown by the evidence that may affect 
the credibility of the testimony. 
 
The Superior Court also instructed the jury that, in making a determination 
regarding conflicts in testimony, to consider the witness’ demeanor or behavior, 
the reasonableness of the testimony, “the witness’ opportunities for learning and 
knowing the facts about which they testify, and any prejudice or interest they may 
have concerning the outcome of the case”  The jury was further instructed that a 
witness’ conviction for a crime of dishonesty could be considered for judging the 
credibility of that witness. 
14 
 
The record reflects that Benson’s trial attorney emphasized to the jury 
Lawhorn’s reasons for testifying and expounded upon them in closing argument: 
We know what David Lawhorn is.  He’s a convicted 
robber, serial burglar.  He’s been sentenced to four and a 
half years in jail.  And now he comes into court and he’s 
got a deal with the State.  Come in and tell you what you 
allegedly heard the defendant tell you.  And the State, the 
Department of Justice, will file a motion with the judge.  
And the judge will make a decision about whether he 
cuts David Lawhorn a break.  How credible or 
trustworthy is that type of person on the stand that has an 
ulterior motive to come forward?  He didn’t come 
forward when he first heard the defendant allegedly tell 
him this stuff. 
 
Benson now argues on appeal that the jury should have been given an 
instruction in accordance with the Third Circuit’s Pattern Jury Instruction for 
informant witnesses.  Benson acknowledges, however, that an informant witness 
instruction is not required in all cases.  In fact, the case that Benson cites to support 
his argument on appeal, United States v. Isaac,13 did not require such an 
instruction.14 
 “As a general rule, a defendant is not entitled to a particular instruction, but 
he does have the unqualified right to a correct statement of the substance of the 
law.”15  “A trial court’s jury charge will not serve as grounds for reversible error if 
                                                 
13 134 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 1998). 
14 Id. at 205. 
15 Smith v. State, 913 A.2d 1197, 1241 (Del. 2006); (quoting Bullock v. State, A.2d 775 A.2d 
1043, 1047 (Del. 2001); Floray v. State, 720 A.2d 1132, 1138 (Del. 1998)); see also Flamer v. 
State, 490 A.2d 104, 128 (Del. 1983). 
15 
 
it is ‘reasonably informative and not misleading, judged by common practices and 
standards of verbal communication.’”16  Therefore, as long as the trial judge’s jury 
instruction was legally correct, the fact that it differed from Benson’s current 
desired instruction, which was not requested at trial, is irrelevant.17 
Benson’s jury was given the pattern instruction on the credibility of 
witnesses, conflicts in testimony and witness’ conviction of a crime.  The jury 
instructions that were given adequately guided the jury as trier of fact and 
determiner of credibility and enabled the jury to perform its duty.  The record 
reflects no plain error. 
Conclusion 
The Superior Court’s judgment of convictions is affirmed. 
 
                                                 
16 Bullock, 775 A.2d at n. 47; (quoting Baker v. Reid, 57 A.2d 103, 109 (Del. 1947)). 
17 See Grace v. State, 658 A.2d 1011, 1014 (Del. 1995).