Title: Smith v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 367, 2000
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 7, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STEPHEN D. SMITH,
)
)  No. 367, 2000
Defendant Below,
)
Appellant,
)  Court Below:  Superior Court
)  of the State of Delaware in
v.
)  and for the Sussex County
)
STATE OF DELAWARE,
)  Cr.A. No. IS98-12-0277 through 0279
)  Cr. ID No. 9809009063
Plaintiff Below,
)
Appellee.
)
Submitted:  July 10, 2001
Decided:  August 7, 2001
Before WALSH, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 7th day of August, 2001, it appears to the Court that:
1.
Stephen D. Smith appeals the judgment of Superior Court after the
Court convicted him of three counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse Third.
2.
Smith alleges that the Superior Court erred when it denied his Motion
to Dismiss Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment for lack of specificity in that the
counts charged a range of dates so broadly expansive in time that it prejudiced his
ability to defend.
3.
We conclude that where Smith’s defense focused on a complete denial
of any interaction with the victim consistent with that alleged in the indictment at
any time, the testimony of the victim focused on incidents surrounding events
2
known to have occurred on dates certain and Smith’s Motion attacked the State’s
ability to establish that the victim was under sixteen, as opposed to difficulty in
preparing a defense, he suffered no unfair prejudice.  Therefore, we  affirm the
Superior Court convictions.
4.
Interestingly, although Smith urges a reversal on appeal based upon
an alleged difficulty in defending against charges subsumed within a broad range
of dates, the focus of both the argument below and, consequently, the Superior
Court’s ruling was an alleged requirement that dates certain be provided in order to
establish that the victim was under sixteen at the time of the offenses.  Indeed, the
Court’s ruling makes that clear:
Mr. Haller, you had a motion to dismiss which I’m going to
deny.  In the indictment, there were three separate counts, one alleging
a specific date; Counts 2 and 3 alleged a range of dates.  And your
argument was that the date wasn’t [was] an essential element of the
crime and it had to be proven on that particular day.  I do think that a
date or dates are important, because the State has to show that the
crimes, the alleged crimes took place while the victim was under the
age of 16.  But given the one specific date and the range of dates in
Counts 2 and 3, under any scenario, or under that range of dates, the
victim was under the age of 16 at the time.  So based on that, I’m
going to deny your motion.1
5.
We review the Superior Court’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss under
an abuse of discretion standard.
                                          
1 State v. Smith, Del. Super., Cr. A. Nos. IS98-12-0277-0279, Bradley, J., at *97-98 (May 22,
2000).
3
6.
The Appellant argues for the first time on appeal that lack of
specificity on the dates of two counts of an indictment alleging unlawful sexual
intercourse prejudiced his defense of denial and/or alibi.  However, before trial he
asked for an outright dismissal on the apparent theory that the dates were so
broadly stated that they did not specifically designate a date certain when the
victim’s age could be determined as of the time of the offense.  The Superior Court
denied the motion based on that theory at the conclusion of trial.
7.
The broadly based statement of the range of dates of the offenses in
Counts 2 and 3 did not prejudice the defense’s preparation given the defense theory
that no incident of the kind described in the indictment ever occurred and that the
accusations against Smith were fabricated because of a custodial dispute between
him and his former wife, the victim’s sister.  Further, the victim’s testimony
concerning the incidents closely tracked the dates of known events, giving the
defense, following the response to its Request for a Bill of Particulars, ample time
to develop an alternative alibi defense or request more time to do so.  The defense
made a sound tactical decision to attack the face of the indictment and to proceed
to trial on a general denial.  Notwithstanding that reasonable tactical decision, the
Superior Court fairly assessed the credibility of the victim and Smith and resolved
credibility against him.  The record supports that conclusion.  Furthermore, the
4
Court correctly addressed the Motion to Dismiss based on the argument then made
and denied it in an exercise of the Court’s sound discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele_______________
Justice