Title: Thomas v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 557, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 1, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEPHEN THOMAS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 557, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  
§  Cr. ID 1408006741 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 4, 2016 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: June 1, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 1st day of June 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief 
filed under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, 
and the State’s response, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Stephen Thomas, was convicted in June 2015 of 
one count each of Aggravated Menacing, Possession of a Firearm during the 
Commission of a Felony (“PFCF”), and Driving Under the Influence 
(“DUI”).  The Superior Court sentenced Thomas to a total period of nine 
years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving three years in 
prison for eighteen months at decreasing levels of supervision.  This is 
Thomas’s direct appeal. 
2 
 
 
(2) 
Thomas’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Rule 26(c).  Thomas’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Thomas’s attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Thomas with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Thomas also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Thomas has raised several 
issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Thomas’s counsel, as well as to the points raised by Thomas, and 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment. 
 
(3) 
The sole witness at trial was Corporal Murphy of the New 
Castle County Police.  He testified about events that occurred on the evening 
of August 18, 2014 in New Castle, Delaware.  Murphy testified that, while 
he was stopped in his unmarked patrol vehicle at a red light on Route 13, a 
black Nissan screeched to a stop beside him.  Murphy noticed that the driver 
was looking at his phone.  After the light turned green, the Nissan sped off.  
Murphy followed behind the Nissan, which drove at speeds in excess of 85 
mph.  Murphy activated his emergency lights.  The Nissan did not 
immediately stop but eventually pulled over.  Murphy pulled his car behind 
the Nissan.  As he walked toward the driver’s window, Murphy shone his 
3 
 
flashlight through the rear window of the car and observed the driver pull 
out a handgun from the center console and point the muzzle toward the open 
window that Murphy was approaching.  Murphy drew his own weapon, held 
it to the back of the driver’s head and ordered the driver to drop his weapon.  
After other officers arrived, the driver, who turned out to be Thomas, was 
arrested and taken into custody.  Thomas’s blood alcohol content was 0.12, 
in excess of the legal limit of 0.08.   
 
(4) 
The jury convicted Thomas of Aggravated Menacing, PFCF, 
and DUI.  The jury acquitted Thomas of Carrying a Concealed Deadly 
Weapon.  After trial, Thomas moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing 
that there was insufficient evidence of a “face to face” confrontation to 
establish the elements of Aggravated Menacing and, thus, PFCF.  The 
Superior Court denied that motion in a written opinion dated September 24, 
2015. 
 
(5) 
The standard and scope of review applicable to the 
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under 
Rule 26(c) is twofold:  (a) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims; and (b) this Court must conduct its own review of the record and 
4 
 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.1 
 
(6) 
In response to his counsel’s Rule 26(c) brief and motion to 
withdraw, Thomas submitted a five-paragraph letter, which raises two 
distinct issues.  First, Thomas reiterates his claim that the evidence was 
insufficient to support his conviction for Aggravated Menacing and that the 
Superior Court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal as to 
the charges of Aggravated Menacing and PFCF.  Second, Thomas contends 
that the prosecutor improperly vouched for Corporal Murphy during closing 
arguments. 
 
(7) 
This Court reviews the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for 
a judgment of acquittal de novo to determine “whether any rational trier of 
fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find 
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”2  Delaware law draws no 
distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.3  Moreover, our 
review of the jury’s factual findings is deferential because the jury is solely 
responsible for determining witness credibility, for resolving any conflicts in 
                                                          
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
2 Seward v. State, 723 A.2d 365, 369 (Del. 1999) (quoting Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 
1345, 1355 (Del. 1991)). 
3 Morgan v. State, 922 A.2d 395, 200 (Del. 2007). 
5 
 
the testimony, and for drawing all reasonable inferences from the proven 
facts.4 
 
(8) 
Under 11 Del. C. § 602(b), “[a] person is guilty of aggravated 
menacing when by displaying what appears to a deadly weapon that person 
intentionally places another person in fear of imminent physical injury.”5  
Thomas argues that there was insufficient evidence in this case that he 
intentionally placed Murphy in fear of imminent physical injury because 
Murphy testified that he approached Thomas from the rear of the Nissan and 
the two men never had a face-to-face confrontation.  Thomas also argues 
that Murphy never testified that he was in fear of imminent physical injury. 
 
(9) 
The Superior Court rejected Thomas’s motion for a judgment of 
acquittal, holding that Delaware law requires only that the defendant display 
a weapon and intentionally cause fear of imminent physical injury, not that 
the defendant must point the weapon directly at the victim in a face-to-face 
confrontation.  As the Superior Court noted, Murphy testified that he saw 
Thomas pull the gun from the console and point the gun toward the window 
that Murphy was approaching.  Thomas’s actions led Murphy to believe that 
Thomas was going to fire the gun when Murphy got to the window.  This led 
                                                          
 
4 Id. 
5 11 Del. C. § 602(b) (2015). 
6 
 
Murphy to unholster his own weapon and order Thomas to drop his gun.  
Under the circumstances, we agree with the Superior Court’s conclusion that 
the evidence, including all reasonable inferences,6 was sufficient as a matter 
of law to establish all of the elements of Aggravated Menacing beyond a 
reasonable doubt.   
 
(10) Thomas’s other claim is that the prosecutor engaged in 
improper vouching when he stated, “[y]ou will see the evidence has shown 
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged.”  This 
claim was not raised below.  Accordingly, we review for plain error.7  
 
(11) Improper vouching occurs if the prosecutor “implies personal 
superior knowledge beyond what is logically inferred from the evidence at 
trial.”8  The prosecutor’s statement in this case was proper argument 
regarding what the evidence had established.9  It was not the prosecutor’s 
opinion regarding his belief in Thomas’s guilt.  Thus, we find no plain error. 
 
(12) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Thomas’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Thomas’s counsel has made a 
                                                          
 
6 Lively v. State, 427 A.2d 882, 884 (Del. 1981). 
7 Kirkley v. State, 41 A.3d 372, 376 (Del. 2012). 
8 Id. at 377. 
9 Id. (holding that “the prosecutor is allowed to argue all legitimate inferences of the 
defendant’s guilt that follow from the evidence.”). 
7 
 
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that 
Thomas could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice