Title: Mundell v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 648, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 6, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
ROBERT G. MUNDELL, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 648, 2015 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court  
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
v. 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1308026413 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:   May 4, 2016 
Decided:   May 6, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
This 6th day of May, 2016, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In August 2013, 17 year old high school student Gregory Johnson was 
knocked out at a bonfire party in Kenton, Delaware, and had his new iPhone 
stolen.  A week later, on August 31, 2013, Johnson’s mother Barbara Thomas and 
several associates, including the defendant, Robert Mundell, arranged to meet the 
individuals they believed had stolen Johnson’s phone in the parking lot of the 
SNAP Fitness in Smyrna.  Upon arriving, a violent melee ensued between 
Mundell’s group and several young men who had been in the parking lot or arrived 
as the fighting started.  During the fight, Mundell was beaten.  He recovered, 
2 
 
though, and struck a young man, Ameer Watson, in the face with a golf club that 
Thomas brought to the fight. 
(2) 
For his participation in the incident, the Superior Court convicted 
Mundell of riot, misdemeanor assault, and disorderly conduct.  The court 
sentenced Mundell to probation, imposed a fine, and ordered that he perform 100 
hours of community service.  Mundell appeals his conviction for riot only. 
(3) 
There is one issue raised in this appeal.  Mundell argues that there was 
insufficient evidence from which the jury could have rationally found him guilty of 
riot.1  A person is guilty of the crime of riot when two elements are present.  First, 
the person must participate in disorderly conduct with at least two others.  Second, 
the person must participate in the conduct (a) with the intent to commit or facilitate 
the commission of a felony or misdemeanor, (b) with the intent to prevent or 
coerce official action, or (c) when the person or any other participant to the 
knowledge of the person uses or plans to use a firearm or other deadly weapon.2 
(4) 
In this appeal, Mundell recites the version of the disputed events that 
he hoped would convince the jury of his innocence at trial.  But there was 
sufficient evidence of another version of events to support the jury’s finding that 
                                                 
1 Rose v. State, 51 A.3d 479, 482 (Del. 2012) (“To determine whether a conviction was based 
upon sufficient evidence, the standard of review is whether the evidence, viewed in the light 
most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential 
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  We review the evidence in the record de 
novo.” (internal citations omitted)). 
2 11 Del. C. § 1302. 
3 
 
Mundell was guilty of riot.  First, he and at least two others engaged in a course of 
disorderly conduct.  A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when he 
“intentionally causes public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to any other 
person, or creates a risk thereof by . . . engaging in fighting or in violent, 
tumultuous or threatening behavior.”3  Witnesses testified that they saw Mundell 
and his fellow participant Frankie (Johnson’s cousin) instigating a fight and acting 
belligerently.  There was also testimony that Thomas and Johnson attacked a 
young man.  And Mundell brawled and knocked Watson’s teeth out with the golf 
club.  There was thus sufficient evidence for the jury to have concluded beyond a 
reasonable doubt that the first element was satisfied. 
(5) 
There was also sufficient evidence for the jury to have concluded that 
Mundell intended to commit a misdemeanor and used a deadly weapon, either of 
which would make him guilty of riot.  Witnesses testified that they saw Mundell 
swinging a golf club around, and committing a misdemeanor assault by striking 
Watson in the face.  Additionally, they saw Barbara Thomas supplying Mundell 
with the golf club, which qualified as a “deadly weapon” for purposes of the riot 
statute.4  There was thus sufficient evidence for the jury to have rationally 
                                                 
3 11 Del. C. § 1301.  The Superior Court also convicted Mundell of disorderly conduct, and he 
did not appeal that conviction. 
4 A “deadly weapon” can be any dangerous instrument “which is used, or attempted to be used, 
to cause death or serious physical injury.”  11 Del. C. § 222(5). 
4 
 
concluded that all of the required elements of the crime of riot were proven beyond 
a reasonable doubt. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice