Title: Hackett v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 255, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 14, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARK HACKETT, 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   No. 255, 2005 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§   Court Below – Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   in and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   Cr. A. No. IN04-09-1997 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§      Case Number: 0408029122 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  November 10, 2005 
 
 
 
 
     Decided:  December 14, 2005 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED. 
 
 
Ralph D. Wilkinson, IV, Esquire, Assistant Public Defender, 
Wilmington, Delaware, for appellant. 
 
Aimee 
M. 
Czachorowski, 
Esquire, 
Department 
of 
Justice, 
Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOLLAND, Justice: 
 
 
 
2
 
The defendant-appellant, Mark Hackett, was charged with the 
following three criminal offenses:  Count I:  Maintaining a Vehicle for 
Keeping Controlled Substances, in violation of title 16, section 4755(a)(5) of 
the Delaware Code; Count II:  Possession of a Narcotic Schedule II 
Controlled Substance, in violation of title 16, section 4753 of the Delaware 
Code; and Count III:  Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, in violation of title 
16, section 4771 of the Delaware Code.   
 
Count I was dismissed at trial before the jury began its deliberations.  
The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to Count II, and the State entered a 
nolle prosequi after trial.  Hackett was convicted of Possession of Drug 
Paraphernalia. He was sentenced immediately to one year of incarceration at 
Level V, suspended for one year at Level II supervision, and fined in the 
amount of $750.   
 
Hackett has raised one issue in this direct appeal.  According to 
Hackett, the trial judge erroneously denied his motion for a judgment of 
acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to convict him for 
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  We have concluded that Hackett’s 
motion was properly denied. 
 
3
Facts 
 
On July 14, 2004, Detectives Feeney and VanCampen of the Newark 
Police Department were driving back to the McDonald’s restaurant on South 
College Avenue in Newark.  They had just finished a patrol and were 
returning to the parking lot to drop Detective Feeney off at his car.  It was 
approximately 2:45 in the afternoon.  The McDonald’s parking lot was 
relatively empty. 
 
The officers noticed a black Saturn backed into a parking spot in a 
remote area of the parking lot.  Shortly after the detectives saw the car, a 
green Nissan pulled into the parking lot and parked one spot away from the 
black Saturn.  The driver of the Saturn left his car and entered the Nissan on 
the passenger side.  About a minute later, he left the Nissan and returned to 
the Saturn, holding something in his hand. 
 
Detective Feeney considered this behavior suspicious.  He approached 
the Saturn on foot.  As Detective Feeney approached, Hackett was looking 
down at something in his lap.  When the detective knocked on Hackett’s 
window, he startled Hackett, who dropped the object he was holding.   
As Detective Feeney talked to Hackett, he detected an odor of alcohol 
on Hackett’s breath.  Hackett admitted having had several alcoholic drinks 
before coming to the McDonald’s restaurant.  Detective Feeney then called 
 
4
for another officer to perform field sobriety tests to determine if Hackett was 
impaired.   
 
After Hackett stepped out of the car, Detective Feeney saw a clear 
glassine bag with white chalky residue lying on the floor of the driver’s side 
of the car.  Based on his training and experience with drug cases, Detective 
Feeney recognized this bag as a type commonly used to package cocaine.  
He visually identified the white substance as cocaine residue.  Another 
glassine bag, this one black, was later found outside the Saturn where 
Hackett had been standing after exiting the car.  That black glassine bag was 
tested by the Medical Examiner and found to contain .10 grams of cocaine.   
Drug Paraphernalia Conviction 
Hackett was charged with possession of cocaine based on his  
possession of a black glassine bag that was found to contain .10 grams of 
cocaine.  He was also charged with possessing drug paraphernalia on the 
basis of the clear glassine bag with a chalky white reside that was found in 
his car.  The clear glassine bag was not tested by the Medical Examiner.   
At Hackett’s trial, Detective Feeney described his experience and 
training in drug identification and in handling drug cases.  He testified that 
the clear glassine bag recovered from the inside of Hackett’s car was of the 
 
5
type commonly used to repackage cocaine for sale.  He also testified that he 
visually recognized the white residue on the bag as cocaine residue.   
Standard of Review 
 
After the jury’s finding of guilt for Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, 
Hackett moved for a judgment of acquittal arguing that the evidence 
presented at trial was insufficient to support a guilty verdict.  However, 
Detective Feeney’s testimony regarding the clear glassine bag was received 
at trial without objection by Hackett.  It was only after the jury had returned 
its verdict, in a post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal, that Hackett 
raised the argument that Detective Feeney had not been qualified as an 
expert witness.   
 
Delaware Rule of Evidence 103 requires a party to raise a 
contemporaneous objection to evidence presented during trial or risk losing 
the right to raise that issue on appeal.   
Failure to make an objection at trial 
constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s right to raise that issue on appeal 
unless the error is plain.1  Under the plain error standard of review, the error 
complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to 
jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.2  We have 
                                          
 
1 Capano v. State, 781 A.2d 556, 653 (Del. 2001); Goddard v. State, 382 A.2d 238 (Del. 
1977).   
2 Dutton v. State, 452 A.2d 127, 146 (Del. 1982).   
 
6
concluded that Hackett has not sustained his burden of establishing plain 
error.   
Sufficient Evidence Presented 
 
Detective Feeney described his training in drug identification, 
surveillance and investigation.  The training was received by him at the 
Delaware State Police Academy, the Drug Enforcement Administration and 
the McLaughlin and Northeast County Drug Training Center.  During his 
career, Feeney said, he had participated in approximately 100 to 150 drug 
arrests.  Thus, the record reflects that Detective Feeney’s qualifications to 
testify as an expert witness would have been accepted by the trial judge, 
even if Hackett’s attorney had made a contemporaneous objection.  
Accordingly, any error in not formally recognizing Detective Feeney as an 
expert witness before he rendered his opinion about the clear glassine bag, 
was harmless.   
 
In Hendricks v. State,3 this Court held that testimony of a police 
witness alone was sufficient to prove Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  In 
Hendricks, the paraphernalia, a scale and plastic bags, had been 
inadvertently destroyed by police before trial.  In finding that a missing 
evidence instruction was not necessary, this Court analyzed the sufficiency 
                                          
 
3 Hendricks v. State, 871 A.2d 1118 (Del. 2005). 
 
7
of the “alternative evidence” presented at trial.4  This Court held that the 
absence of the bags and scale was irrelevant because “there was ‘sufficient 
circumstantial evidence based upon the testimony and observations of the 
officers to support a conviction on the . . . possession of drug paraphernalia 
charges.’”5 
 
Alternatively, Hackett alleges that, because the residue in clear 
glassine bag was not tested by the Medical Examiner, there was insufficient 
evidence to find that the clear glassine bag was drug paraphernalia.  Section 
4771, however, does not require that a controlled substance be found on an 
object before it is deemed to be drug paraphernalia.  A person is guilty of 
possession of drug paraphernalia if that person is found in possession of an 
item “used, [or] intended for use . . . [in] packaging, repackaging, storing, 
containing [or] concealing” a controlled substance.6   
Conclusion 
 
On appeal from the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal, this 
Court makes a de novo determination whether, viewing the evidence in the 
light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found 
                                          
 
4 Id. at 1125.   
5 Id. at 1125-26.   
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4771(c) (2005). 
 
8
the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.7  Detective 
Feeney’s testimony that the clear glassine bag he found in Hackett’s car was 
a type commonly used to package cocaine, and that he recognized the white 
chalky residue on the bag as cocaine residue, was sufficient evidence for the 
jury to find Hackett guilty of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.8  Therefore, 
the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. 
 
                                          
 
7 Gronenthal v. State, 779 A.2d 876, 879 (Del. 2001).  
8 Cf. Hendricks v. State, 871 A.2d at 1125-26.